The Everyday Effects of Urban Planning: Exploring Perceptions of Violence, Insecurity and Urban Space in Two Mexican Cities

THE EVERYDAY EFFECTS OF URBAN PLANNING: EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE, INSECURITY AND URBAN SPACE IN TWO MEXICAN CITIES.

A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Faculty of Humanities

2017

Natalia Garcia Cervantes

School of Environment, Education and Development

Contents List of tables ...... 6 List of figures ...... 6 List of photos ...... 8 List of annexes ...... 9 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... 10 Abstract ...... 12 Declaration ...... 13 Copyright Statement ...... 14 Acknowledgements ...... 15 CHAPTER 1 Introduction ...... 17 1.1 Urban violence and urban space ...... 20 1.2 Urban violence in Mexico ...... 22 1.3 Research questions, aims and objectives ...... 25 1.4 Structure of the thesis ...... 26 CHAPTER 2 Understanding the relations between violence, insecurity, space and planning ...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 2.1 Defining violence and insecurity ...... 30 Violence manifestations and perceptions of insecurity ...... 37 2.2 Urban space and planning processes ...... 44 Planning, neoliberalism and urban space ...... 44 Defining urban space ...... 49 Socio-spatial inequalities and the „violence of urbanisation‟ ...... 49 2.3 Physical spatial responses to violence ...... 52 Defensible space ...... 53 „Broken windows‟ and „situational crime‟ theories ...... 55 2.4 Towards a conceptual framework for urban violence ...... 58 2.5 Conclusion ...... 62 CHAPTER 3 Methodology: understanding violence, space and planning in Mexican cities ...... 64 3.1 Theoretical approach and research questions ...... 65 Ontology and epistemology ...... 65 Research aim and questions ...... 63 Qualitative and quantitative methods ...... 67 3.2 Case-study approach and research design ...... 71 City and community case studies selection ...... 72 3.3 Methods of data collection ...... 74

Quantitative surveys ...... 76 Qualitative ...... 79 Transect walks and participant observation ...... 80 Semi-structured interviews with communities ...... 81 Semi-structured interviews with planning officials and NGOs ...... 84 Participatory methods ...... 85 3.4 Data analysis ...... 88 3.5 Ethical issues ...... 89 Concluding comments ...... 94 CHAPTER 4 Urban planning and socio-spatial responses to violence in Mexico ...... 98 Introduction ...... 98 4.1 Urban development, planning and socio-spatial responses to violence in Mexico ...... 99 Urbanisation and unequal socio-spatial development ...... 99 Urban violence and insecurity in Mexico ...... 101 Planning policies, socio-spatial responses to violence, and insecurity in Mexico ...... 104 4.2 Urban planning, and socio-spatial responses to violence in Culiacan .. 115 History and social change ...... 115 Urban violence and insecurity in Sinaloa ...... 120 Planning policies and socio-spatial responses to violence: state and city level ...... 122 Sinaloa ...... 122 Culiacan ...... 124 4.3 Urban planning, and socio-spatial responses to violence in Aguascalientes ...... 130 History and social change ...... 130 Urban violence and insecurity in Aguascalientes ...... 136 Planning policies and socio-spatial responses to violence at state and city level ...... 137 Aguascalientes (State) ...... 137 Aguascalientes (Municipality) ...... 140 Socio-spatial responses to violence and insecurity in the peripheries: the case of Convive Feliz ...... 143 4.4 Comparison of two planning systems ...... 145 4.5 Conclusions ...... 146

CHAPTER 5 Urban space in local communities in Culiacan and Aguascalientes ...... 149 Introduction ...... 149 5.1 A peripheral settlement in Culiacan: 5 de Febrero ...... 150 General characteristics of the population ...... 151 Built environment and planning ...... 154 Irregular settlements: the newly squatted area ...... 157 5.2 An inner-city neighbourhood in Culiacan: Colonia Centro ...... 161 General characteristics of the population ...... 162 Built environment and planning: Plan Parcial Culiacan Zona Centro .... 165 5.3 A peripheral settlement in Aguascalientes: Los Pericos ...... 170 General characteristics of the population ...... 171 Built environment and planning ...... 174 5.4 An inner-city neighbourhood in Aguascalientes: Barrio de San Marcos ...... 177 General characteristics of the population ...... 179 Built environment and planning ...... 181 5.5 Conclusions ...... 184 CHAPTER 6 Perceptions of violence and insecurity in urban space: Culiacan 186 Introduction ...... 186 6.1 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in a peripheral colonia ...... 187 Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity ...... 192 6.2 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in the city centre .... 205 Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity ...... 206 6.3 A comparison of two neighbourhoods in Culiacan ...... 216 6.4 Conclusions ...... 221 CHAPTER 7 Perceptions of violence and insecurity in urban space: Aguascalientes ...... 223 Introduction ...... 223 7.1 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in a peripheral colonia ...... 224 Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity ...... 225 Physical space interventions and deficient infrastructure ...... 232 7.2 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in the city centre .... 241 Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity ...... 244 7.3 A comparison of two neighbourhoods in Aguascalientes ...... 251 7.4 Conclusion ...... 254

CHAPTER 8 Planning, violence, insecurity and the urban space: an analytical comparison ...... 256 Introduction ...... 256 8.1 Culiacan and Aguascalientes ...... 257 8.2 Peripheral neighbourhoods: violence chains ...... 261 8.3 Central neighbourhoods: CPTED ...... 266 8.4 (Re)constructing urban space through violence and insecurity...... 269 8.5 Conclusions ...... 276 CHAPTER 9 Conclusions ...... 278 9.1 Perceptions of violence and insecurity in the urban space ...... 280 9.2 Urban development planning ...... 284 9.3 Theory and policy implications ...... 285 9.4 Further research ...... 292 References ...... 294 Annexes ...... 313

Final word count: 79,508

List of tables

Table 3.1 Criteria for neighbourhoods‟ selection...... 74 Table 3.2 Research questions, methods and justification...... 75 Table 3.3 Results of data collected during fieldwork, by community and research method...... 76 Table 4.1 PRONAPRED activities by frequency, 2014 ...... 112 Table 4.2 PRONAPRED Activities by budget allocation, 2014 ...... 113 Table 4.3 Population of Culiacan by age and sex...... 116 Table 4.4 Comparison between population in Culiacan (municipality) and Sinaloa (state) in 2010...... 117 Table 4.5 Comparison of Sinaloa (state) and National crimes...... 121 Table 4.6 Comparison of Aguascalientes and national selected crimes...... 136 Table 4.7 Planning differences, Culiacan and Aguascalientes ...... 146 Table 5.1 Population of city centre, by year ...... 163 Table 8.1 Analytical framework used in each community ...... 261

List of figures

Figure 2.1 Socio-environmental risk factors for the emergence of violence ...... 60 Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework ...... 61 Figure 4.1 States with high homicide rates per 100 000 inhabitants...... 102 Figure 4.2 Public safety perceptions by state in Mexico (percentages)...... 103 Figure 4.3 Location of Sinaloa in Mexico ...... 115 Figure 4.4 Location of the municipality of Culiacan in Sinaloa...... 116 Figure 4.5 Indicators of social deprivation and vulnerability in Culiacan for 2010...... 118 Figure 4.6 Marginalisation index by AGEB in Culiacan with case study areas indicated...... 119 Figure 4.7 Location of Aguascalientes in Mexico...... 131 Figure 4.8 Municipal division of Aguascalientes ...... 132 Figure 4.9 Urban growth of Aguascalientes municipality by decade...... 133 Figure 4.10 Poverty indicators in Aguascalientes (percentage by total municipal inhabitants). .. 134 Figure 4.11 Marginalisation index by AGEB in Metropolitan Area of Aguascalientes with case study areas indicated...... 135 Figure 5.1 Location of Colonia 5 de Febrero and Colonia Centro in Culiacan...... 150 Figure 5.2 Age and gender of respondents sample in Colonia 5 de Febrero...... 152 Figure 5.3 Income, monthly average in Mexican Pesos, 5 de Febrero...... 153 Figure 5.4 Occupation of inhabitants in colonia 5 de Febrero, ...... 153 Figure 5.5 Education levels in colonia 5 de Febrero...... 154 Figure 5.6 Colonia limits, main streets and roads in 5 de Febrero...... 155 Figure 5.7 Community 5 de Febrero with infrastructure, access, limits and the „invasiones‟ area indicated ...... 156

Figure 5.8 Map showing location of street lamps in Luis de la Mora street ...... 159 Figure 5.9 Map of urban growth in Culiacan ...... 162 Figure 5.10 Age and gender groups, city centre...... 163 Figure 5.11 Occupation of respondents in Colonia Centro...... 164 Figure 5.12 Income in Colonia Centro (monthly average in Mexican Pesos) ...... 164 Figure 5.13 Education level in Colonia Centro...... 165 Figure 5.14 Colonia Centro limits, plazuelas and commercial area ...... 167 Figure 5.15 Zoning uses in Colonia Centro, ground floors...... 167 Figure 5.16 Number of public transport routes passing by Colonia Centro streets...... 168 Figure 5.17 Location of colonia Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos in Aguascalientes...... 170 Figure 5.18 Age and gender in Los Pericos ...... 172 Figure 5.19 Income, monthly average in Mexican Pesos, in Los Pericos ...... 173 Figure 5.20 Occupation of respondents, in Los Pericos ...... 173 Figure 5.21 Education level of respondents, in Los Pericos ...... 174 Figure 5.22 Colonia limits and main streets and roads in Los Pericos...... 175 Figure 5.23 Age and gender in Barrio de San Marcos, ...... 179 Figure 5.24 Income, monthly average in Mexican pesos in Barrio de San Marcos ...... 180 Figure 5.25 Occupation of respondents, Barrio de San Marcos ...... 180 Figure 5.26 Education level of respondents in Barrio de San Marcos ...... 181 Figure 5.27 Limits of Barrio de San Marcos and infrastructure...... 181 Figure 6.1 Security perception, 5 de Febrero...... 191 Figure 6.2 Crime victimisation in 5 de Febrero...... 192 Figure 6.3 Participatory mapping Juan, las canchas area circled in red...... 197 Figure 6.4 Jose‟s participatory map, stream and invasiones area circled in red ...... 201 Figure 6.5 Activities avoided for fear of being a victim of a crime in 5 de Febrero ...... 204 Figure 6.6 Security perception Colonia Centro ...... 206 Figure 6.7 Crime victimisation in Colonia Centro...... 206 Figure 6.8 Melisa‟s participatory map, Teofilo Noris and Zaragoza street circled in red ...... 210 Figure 6.9 Mauricio participatory map, Leyva Solano boulevard and Cristobal Colon street circled in red ...... 214 Figure 6.10 Activities avoided for fear of being a victim of a crime in the Colonia Centro...... 215 Figure 6.11 Percentage of respondents who change routes through the community due to insecurity, Colonia Centro ...... 215 Figure 6.12 Comparison of security perceptions in Colonia Centro and colonia 5 de Febrero .... 218 Figure 6.13 Comparison of respondents' opinion about outsiders‟ perception of neighbourhoods, Colonia Centro and 5 de Febrero ...... 218 Figure 7.1 Security perceptions, Los Pericos ...... 225 Figure 7.2 Crime victimisation in Los Pericos ...... 229 Figure 7.3 Sofia's participatory map ...... 234 Figure 7.4 Clarisa‟s participatory map ...... 235

Figure 7.5 Itzel participatory mapping ...... 238 Figure 7.6 Activities avoided for fear of being victim of a crime in Los Pericos ...... 240 Figure 7.7 Percentage of respondents who said change routes through the community due to insecurity, Los Pericos ...... 240 Figure 7.8 Percentage of respondents who said they avoid certain areas at night due to insecurity in Los Pericos ...... 241 Figure 7.9 Security perception in Barrio de San Marcos ...... 243 Figure 7.10 Crime victimisation, Barrio de San Marcos ...... 243 Figure 7.11 Nieto and Rayon street circled in red ...... 247 Figure 7.12, Rayon street and ExpoPlaza circled in red ...... 249 Figure 7.13 Activities avoided for fear of being victim of a crime, Barrio de San Marcos ...... 251 Figure 7.14 Comparison of respondents' opinion about outsiders‟ perception of neighbourhoods, Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos ...... 252 Figure 7.15 Comparison of security perceptions in colonia Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos, Aguascalientes ...... 253 Figure 8.1 Adapted ecological framework for violence ...... 271 Figure 9.1 Revisited conceptual framework ...... 289

List of photos

Photo 5.1 View of the stream looking south and the bridge for access to the colonia ...... 155 Photo 5.2 View of the squatter settlement...... 158 Photo 5.3 5 de Febrero-Centro bus route leaving the Colonia through the only paved street and access route, Paula Moreno...... 160 Photo 5.4 Linea Verde in Los Pericos, from Rodolfo Landeros Gallegos Street to the north of Pericos...... 177 Photo 5.5 Arturo J. Pani street, pedestrian area, with administrative buildings for La Feria de San Marcos on the left...... 183 Photo 5.6 View of Jardin de San Marcos...... 184 Photo 6.1 „Las canchas‟area by Jose ...... 198 Photo 6.2 „Las canchas‟ area by Juan ...... 199 Photo 6.3 „Las canchas‟, place associated with violence by Juan, ...... 199 Photo 6.4 Pollution on the stream, 5 de Febrero ...... 201 Photo 6.5 Places associated with violence and insecurity ...... 203 Photo 6.6 Plazuela Rosales, secure by day, insecure by night ...... 211 Photo 6.7 Parking space below Teofilo Noris street...... 211 Photo 6.8 Section of Blvd. Leyva Solano considered insecure...... 212 Photo 6.9 Av Lateral Oriente between Angel Flores and Miguel Hidalgo Street ...... 212 Photo 6.10 Agustin Lara and Aquiles Serdan Street, ...... 213 Photo 6.11 West Angel Flores Street ...... 214

Photo 7.1 Laguna in Los Pericos, north of the Colonia...... 233 Photo 7.2 Laguna at the north limit of Los Pericos ...... 234 Photo 7.3 Linea Verde, from Rodolfo Landeros Streets to the south of the Colonia...... 236 Photo 7.4 End of Linea Verde ...... 237 Photo 7.5 Ave Cultura Otomi ...... 237 Photo 7.6 Saxofon Street, south limit of Los Pericos ...... 239 Photo 7.7 San Patricio street east ...... 239 Photo 7.8 Section of Rayon street...... 246 Photo 7.9 Section of Rayon street, back of ExpoPlaza...... 246 Photo 7.10 Alcohol selling point in Pedro de Alba and Navarrete street ...... 247 Photo 7.11 Alcohol selling points at the left in Nieto and Rincon street ...... 248 Photo 7.12 Rincon and Ignacio Lomas street ...... 248 Photo 7.13 Allende street, looking towards Plaza de Toros San Marcos...... 249 Photo 7.14 Allende and Mariano Matamoros street ...... 250

List of annexes

Annex 1 Example of map with surveys location and number in Barrio de San Marcos

Annex 2 Semi-structured interviews with officials

Annex 3 Semi-structured interviews with community members

Annex 4 Participatory mapping and auto-photography participants

Annex 5 Semi-structured interviews questions guide

Annex 6 Survey questionnaire

Annex 7 Participatory mapping and auto-photography activity example

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AGEB Area Geoestadística Básica Geoestatistical basic area

CECADEC Centro de Capacitation Para el Desarrollo Comunitario A.C. Centre for Community Training and Development CDCP Comisión Estatal de Desarrollo de Centros Poblados State Commission for the Development of Populated Centres

CFE Comisión Federal de Electricidad Federal Electricity Commission COLMEX Colegio de México

CONAGUA Comisión Nacional del Agua National Water Comission CONAPO Consejo Nacional de Población National Population Council

CONEVAL Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de Políticas Públicas National Council for the Evaluation of Public Policies

CORETT Comisión de la Regularización de la Tenencia de la Tierra Commission for the Regularisation of Land Tenure

ENVIPE Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública National Survey on Victimisation and Perception of Public Safety IMPLAN Cln Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Culiacán Municipal Planning Institute Culiacan

IMPLAN Ags Instituto Municipal de Planeación de Aguascalientes Municipal Planning Institute Aguascalientes

INEGI Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Information

INFONAVIT Instituto del Fondo Nacional para la Vivienda de los Trabajadores National Funding Institute for Workers‟ Housing

JAPAC Junta de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado de Culiacán Board of Water Supply and Sewerage of Culiacan

LGAH Ley General de Asentamientos Humanos Human Settlements Law

NGO Non-governmental organisation

PAN Partido de Acción Nacional National Action Party

PND Plan Nacional de Desarrollo National Development Plan

PNDU Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano National Programme for Urban Development

PRD Partido de la Revolución Democrática Democratic Revolution Party

PRI Partido Revolucionario Institucional Institutional Revolutionary Party

PRONAPRED Programa Nacional de Prevención del Delito National Programme for Crime Prevention

PSDA Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano Sectorial Program for Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development

SAHOP Secretaría de Asentamientos Humanos y Obras Públicas (Federal) Ministry of Human Settlements and Public Works

SEDESOL Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (Federal) Ministry of Social Development (Federal)

SEDATU Secretaria de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano Ministry of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development

SEGOB Secretaria de Gobernación Home Secretary SEGOUT Secretaria Estatal de Gestión y Ordenamiento Urbano State Ministry of Urban Management and Planning

SESNSP Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública Executive Secretary of the National Public Security System

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

The University of Manchester Candidate’s full name: Natalia Garcia Cervantes Degree title: Doctor of Philosophy Thesis title: The everyday effects of urban planning: exploring perceptions of violence, insecurity and urban space in two Mexican cities. Date: September 2017

Abstract

Urban violence represents one of the greatest development challenges for Latin American countries. During the past two decades, Mexico has witnessed an alarming increase of violence levels heavily associated with homicides and crimes related to drug trafficking. The way this extreme violence problem has been framed has had implications regarding the focus of studies which, from a variety of disciplines, are concerned in understanding the socio-economic causes, the regional security, and governance consequences as well as the national, sub- national and local government policy responses to this phenomenon. In this context, the multifaceted ways in which daily violence manifests in the urban space have been less studied. Aiming to shed light on how varied types of violence and insecurity are experienced at the local level, this research adapts an ecological framework in an attempt to disentangle the impact that urban planning has on the perceptions that citizens living in inner cities and peripheral settlements have of their own urban space, and what the implications for future violence reduction policies may be.

Through a comparative study of two Mexican cities, and using participatory methods including transect walks, auto-photography and risk mapping assessments, the research explores the perceptions of violence and insecurity and their link to urban space, highlighting the role that physical and spatial interventions have played. A main finding of the research is that, while these interventions are seen by policy makers and city planners as an answer to violence, failing to include residents‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity in the design and implementation of these responses limits their effectiveness and outcomes. Moreover, implementation of generic socio-spatial solutions in Mexican cities tends to obscure the real causes of violence, and in some cases, worsens residents‟ feelings of insecurity. In this sense, urban planning seems to have exacerbated the experiences and manifestations of insecurity and violence.

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

I. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes.

II. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made.

III. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.

IV. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library‟s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University‟s policy on Presentation of Theses.

Acknowledgements

The process of doing this PhD has been a life-changing long and winding path. I would have failed to accomplish the task without the unconditional support and brilliant guidance of my supervisors, Dr Alfredo Stein and Dr Melanie Lombard. Dr Stein, it is hard to put into words how grateful I am for the opportunity of being your student, and sharing your vast knowledge and experience. Thanks for always having a sympathetic ear in times of desperation and confusion, in PhD matters and beyond! Dr Lombard, thank for your meticulous and constant constructive criticism, thank you for the support you always offered in critical times. I sincerely thank you both enormously, for the moral support, patience, continuous encouraging criticism and for believing in me. You both taught me so much and more importantly, you taught me to learn.

I would like to thank the inhabitants of the communities of 5 de Febrero, Colonia Centro, Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos, without you this thesis would not exist. I hope that this helps even a little to build better cities, and to deal with violence in the best possible way. My gratitude also goes to the planning officials, acacdemics and NGOs that very kindly received me, and shared their views and expertise. I am also grateful to my fantastic research assistants who injected their positive energy to fieldwork and significantly supported my work. Similarly, my gratefulness goes to my excellent proofreader, Monica Hicks.

I thank with all my heart my son Julian and my husband Sergio, who are the light and loves of my life, my two main motives, this is for you both. Julian, your existence is beyond anything I could have dreamed. Thank you for filling my days with your beautiful uplifting smile and your laughter. Thank you for having the patience I needed to finish this massive task. I only hope to be a better person to make the best example I can, for you. Sergio, your patience, kind words but sharp critique and immeasurable love have kept me going. Thanks for walking this path with me, and putting up with my constant complaining and pessimist views of the world. Thank you for always being there, even in silence, I love you always, through thick and thin.

I also wish to express my utmost gratitude to my mom, my sister Carolina, and brother Mauricio, who from afar, have always kept me accompanied, supported and loved. My mom, who has given me everything I need in life and more, and has always pushed me to believe I can do anything I want, and I can always do better. A mis abuelos, Jose y Gloria, ustedes dos son siempre mi más grande inspiracion. Siempre valoraré y mantendré como estándares para mi propia vida su humildad, naturaleza trabajadora y amor sin fin por su familia.

I am also very grateful to my in-laws, Isabel and Policarpo, el apoyo que nos han brindado durante los últimos años ha sido clave y nunca podremos agradecerles lo suficiente. Siempre escuchando, siempre ayudando y siempre apoyando.

I thank the friends I made in Manchester for sharing this path at different stages, Marisol and Julian, Vicente and Luisa, Carlos, Maria, Paola, Milan and especially, Jessica, you have kept me sane. I also thank my friend Jaime for the technical support in the submission of this thesis. To the friends in Mexico, Alberto, Karla, Ivette, and Cynthia.

During the period of my PhD, I received funding from Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia, CONACYT. This funding made viable for me to complete the degree, for which I am very tremendously grateful.

I would not have been able to achieve this without all of the support I received during these past four years. I will never be able to thank you all enough.

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

The streets have given rise to a new set of power relations. Social inequality and spatial fragmentation generate specific kinds of social violence, sometimes legitimate and sometimes not, […] the inability of the state to control this violence and maintain the unstable equilibrium […] has only served to reinforce boundaries between the excluded and the included and created new spaces for insecurity, violence, and terror to flourish (Sanchez, 2006:189)

The structure of the understanding of urban violence has been created, through personal experience, the conversion of the sum of collective and individual experiences […] Thus the image of the defenseless city, like the bound victim‟s body awaiting the knife thrust. […] Thus the idea of new crimes and new forms of violence (Monsivais, 2002:240).

Insecurity has seeped into the fabric of our lives, and has become the template of our daily lived experience and the nightmare vision of our dreams and expectations (Vail, 2005:1) Urban violence and insecurity are a lived reality for many people around the world, particularly in the context of Latin America. Some studies have suggested the region is the most violent in the world (Buvinic et al, 1999; Imbusch et al, 2011; Latinobarometro, 2010; UNODC, 2013). For millions of people in Latin America, urban violence represents an obstacle for development (Buvinic and Morrison, 1999; Winton, 2004). According to the NGO Seguridad, Justicia y Paz (2016), in 2015, 41 out of the world‟s 50 most violent cities were in Latin America. The region alone accounts for one third of global homicides, with just eight per cent of the world‟s population (Seguridad, Justicia y Paz, 2016).

The causes of violence have been studied for decades, and from different perspectives. However, there seems to be points of consensus about several explanations to understand violence in Latin America (Hoelscher and Nussio, 2016; Briceño Leon et al, 2008). They range from political interpretations which consider violence an integral part of Latin America‟s democratic transitions (Arias and Goldstein, 2010), and a response from the state to maintain „democratic order‟ (Sanchez, 2006); to approaches that consider violence as a result of neoliberal policies and stark socio-economic inequalities (Fajnzylber et al, 2000). Others see the unequal distribution of resources, social exclusion and structural violence (Galtung, 1969), as factors generating dynamics that work as a breeding ground for the proliferation of violence in the region.

As the citation by Monsivais (2012) suggests, many scholars now recognise the emergence of new forms of violence. The political violence that characterised the development of Latin American democracies during the 1980s (Imbusch et al, 2011) has shifted in the sense that the region now experiences a myriad of violence manifestations (Auyero and de Lara, 2012; Moser and McIlwaine, 2014). The implications of this are that violence is now present as an intricate, multi-faceted, and pervasive phenomenon, which is becoming predominantly „urban‟ (Glebbeek and Koonings, 2016).

While this takes account of the fact that „insecurity has seeped into the fabric of our lives‟ (Vail 2005), it also suggests the need to study the phenomena of urban violence from the perspetives of those who live in violent contexts (Koonings and Kruijt, 2006). The reason for this is that the uncertainty provoked by violence is experienced as fear of crime and insecurity, and perceptions of insecurity “fundamentally affect well-being” (Moser, 2004:4); violence and insecurity affect all aspects and well-being of virtually all inhabitants of urban areas – elites, middle classes and the poor (Koonings and Kruijt, 2006).

Processes of violence and insecurity in Latin America thus relate in specific ways to urban areas, where “the streets have given rise to a new set of power relations” and “social inequality and spatial fragmentation generate specific kinds of social violence” (Sanchez, 2006). The socio-spatial inequalities that characterise most of the cities in the region (Thibert and Osorio, 2014) have a strong relation with violence. Socio-spatial inequalities are understood to generate „fractured‟ cities in Latin America “…showing a basic duality of rich and poor, formal and informal, organised and disintegrated, ruled and unruled, separated and linked at the same time” (Koonings and Kruijt, 2006:1), or a „defenseless city‟ as Monsivais (2002) suggests. Some authors go as far as to suggest that “state ordering of territory” (Davis, 2014:376) – in other words, a modernist tradition of urban planning – has had an impact on and may help to explain the origins of violence in Latin American cities.

Mexico, the context for my research, is representative of the violence trends experienced in Latin America; violence in Mexico is „average‟ for the region (Heinle et al, 2017). Indeed, violence – measured by homicides – is lower

18 in Mexico than in some other Latin American countries, including Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. In 2012 the homicide rate in Mexico was 21.5 per 100,000 people, slightly above the region‟s mean, which was 21.4 per 100,000 (Heinle et al, 2014). However, this was a dramatic increase from the 8.1 homicide rate in 2007, and according to Heinle et al (2014:2), “no other country in the Western Hemisphere saw such a large increase either in its homicide rate or in the absolute number of homicides over the last two decades”.

Nevertheless, violence trends in Mexico are more nuanced than official reports suggest, particularly in terms of homicide rates1. While there are places that have officially recorded high rates of homicides, there are also areas that have very low violence rates. In other words, violence is not homogeneous and impacts populations differently across the country. Until 2011, violence in Mexico was concentrated in specific geographical areas related to drug trafficking activities, with 70 per cent of homicides occurring in eight states (Molzahn et al, 2012). However, in 2016, homicide rates increased in 24 states (Heinle et al, 2017). While this implies that violence throughout the country varies greatly, it has an inevitably negative effect over citizens‟ perception of security overall.

The overall research aim is to explore citizens‟ perceptions of urban violence and insecurity in Mexico and its relation to urban space. On one hand, official data on violence often obscure citizens‟ daily experiences of urban violence, and their perceptions of insecurity. The thesis also aims to look critically at planning processes, urban space and urban violence and insecurity, in order to scrutinise the role of planning in this interaction, since planning is the policy field most often charged with responding to urban violence. The increasing importance given to the impact of violence and insecurity in Latin American urban spaces has informed the formulation of my research aims in the specific context of Mexico. The thesis explores different manifestations of violence and their relations in two Mexican cities, Sinaloa and Aguascalientes. It does this through a focus on the spatial distribution of violence, the characteristics of its concentration in certain urban spaces and its effects on communities as well as planning systems in Mexican cities. Using an ecological framework for violence

1 The effectiveness of using homice rates as a proxy for violence is discussed throught the thesis, particularly in chapters 3 and 4.

19 as a research lens and applying a case-study framework, the thesis seeks to contribute to understanding violence and insecurity through citizens‟ perceptions in a peripheral settlement and a central neighbourhood in each city. The research findings allow further understanding how violence affects different areas within each city, and within Mexico, and how these are reflected in people‟s perception of urban space. Finally it allows the exploration of how urban planning develops in the context of Mexico and its relation to violence and insecurity.

This section has broadly introduced some of the key issues relating to urban violence, insecurity, and urban space in the context of Latin America and Mexico. The themes underpinning the research aim are explored more thoroughly in this chapter, which is divided into four sections. Section one introduces urban violence and urban space debates, and how this relation has been studied before, section two looks more closely at urban violence processes in Mexico, while section three and four introduce research questions and thesis structure.

1.1 Urban violence and urban space

As urban violence and its many manifestations become less spatially restricted, they stop being confined to specific areas of cities such as „the urban margins‟ where they have historically mainly affected the urban poor (Auyero et al, 2015; McIlwaine and Moser, 2007). This has prompted a surge in research on the „geographies‟ and „spatiality of violence‟ (Springer and Le Billon, 2016), the „territoriality of violence‟ (Valenzuela- Aguilera, 2013), and how violence „sits‟ in places (Springer, 2011). Scholars have emphasised the territorial, social and economic repercussions that the “spatial distribution of violence and its concentration in certain urban spaces” have (Davis, 2012:23). For example, in situations of chronic violence, public spaces become dominated by violent actors, and become inaccessible to residents (McIlwaine and Moser, 2007); in such contexts, the „lack of viable community spaces‟ impacts on the everyday life of citizens (Davis, 2012:23).

Since “territory has become a central actor”, this grants a “spatial dimension” to violence responses (Valenzuela-Aguilera, 2013:21). Considering

20 the limited success that certain „traditional‟ approaches to violence reduction have had (e.g. justice system reforms, militarisation) and the success certain upgrading interventions have had in cities like Medellin in Colombia and Recife in Brazil (Hoelscher and Nussio, 2016), urban design and urban development approaches to violence have become an increasingly widely used response to violence reduction. These approaches are based on a long tradition in criminology and sociology, particularly originating in the global North, which recognise the linkages between physical design and crime reduction, that is, situational crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) (Agnew, 1992; Cozens, 2011; Hagan, 2012; Jeffery, 1971). However, some of the main concerns of using space- based responses to violence and crime prevention are that these tend to neglect the particularities of context and disregard urban space; that they lack flexibility in their principles, guidance and application on the ground; and that there is a lack of clarity in their scope (Armitage, 2014).

My research aims to contribute to highlighting the centrality of urban space, and the limitations of environmental responses to violence, recognising the complex relationships between violence and the range of interpersonal, community, social, economic, and political factors affecting its appearance. These relationships have been synthesised in the ecological framework for violence (WHO, 2016). My research uses an adapted version of the framework, viewing violence as the result of a variety of risk factors interacting at several levels. The thesis stresses the need to understand socio-spatial inequalities and urban space, as well as the planning processes generating them, since these, instead of responding to violence, might be creating certain conditions that make violence more likely to appear.

This approach allows recognising the spatial dynamics of different scales of planning processes (from national to state and city levels), while enhancing the importance of community and street-level understandings of urban spaces through citizens‟ perceptions. This permits the identification of “the limits inherent to intervening at only one end of a complex scalar continuum or to developing policies geared toward one or the other set of aspects of the problems of violence, because of the inter-connection of causalities” (Davis, 2012:24).

1.2 Urban violence in Mexico

As in the rest of Latin America, the causes of violence in Mexico are multiple, for example: availability of firearms, high levels of inequality, drug trafficking and organised crime, deficiencies in the provision of basic infrastructure, and weakened social capital and community organisations (Davis, 2012; Guerrero Gutierrez, 2012; Moser and McIlwaine, 2006; Briceño-Leon, 2008). Even if the country has been „traditionally violent‟ (Azaola, 2012), in recent years, statistical analysis has shown a sudden increase in the country‟s homicide rate, particularly since 2007 (UNODC, 2013), which comes after a declining trend observed in the previous decades (Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, 2015).

The increase in violence is arguably attributable to President Calderon‟s policy decreed in the Merida Initiative (Carpenter, 2010; Guerrero-Gutierrez, 2012; Hernandez, 2013; Rios Contreras, 2013). This comprised mostly a military and law enforcement approach, which was based on coercion, and conducting actions specifically focused on reducing the ability of organisations to develop criminal activities (Carpenter, 2010). These actions included seizures or destruction of illicit goods (drugs), the confiscation of assets belonging to criminal organisations, and the imprisonment, arrest or extradition of their leaders and overall dismantling of criminal groups (Guerrero-Gutierrez, 2012). However, this policy backfired in terms of effects on violence – ie it increased instead of diminishing homicide rates. Indeed, some have argued that “there is a security crisis that has eroded public space and the quality of life of Mexicans” (Palma, 2010:381).

Some authors sustain that violence has been an integral part of the consolidation of Mexican society (Azaola, 2012; Johns, 1995). In many ways, violence has been present historically; scholars have contended that “state- perpetrated violence” (Johns, 1995:xi) is the most important form of violence in Mexico, since it has served both to achieve political consolidation, particularly with the case of the PRI party and to „impose a certain order‟ by means of violence (Borbolla, 2017; Meyer, 2013, 2005, 1977; Romero-Vadillo, 2016). Thus, the use of state violence through different periods of Mexican history has

22 been key in the struggle to “destroy and transform the political order” (Borbolla, 2017:1).

State violence has been deployed in a wide range of geographical regions as well as social sectors, historically characterised by authoritarianism, and state repression of social movements (Aguayo, 2015). Pre and post Revolution2 examples of this are Rio Blanco3 and Tlatelolco4 respectively, which illustrate cases where the state forcibly prevented, contained, repressed and persecuted social movements. The modern Mexican state has also arguably been responsible for unjustifiably incarcerating political opponents or for forced disappearances as early as 1907 (Montemayor, n.d.).

Furthermore, some authors like Aguayo (2015) argue that in many ways, the Mexican state has instituted a „legitimate monopoly of violence‟ largely accomplished by the PRI. Rios Contreras (2013) has gone further to suggest that the monopoly of violence centralised by the PRI began to break with the change of ruling political party in 2000, when the PAN won the Presidential Election for the first time. At this stage, symbiotically with a process of decentralisation occurring in the country, „power voids‟ were generated, which led to the „decentralisation of violence‟ and the rise of criminal organisations, since “[decentralised] governments only have the responsibility to keep violence low in their own jurisdictions, which allows criminals to engage in strategic violent

2 The Revolucion Mexicana was an armed conflict that took place from 1910 to 1920, to end the ruling of Porfirio Diaz, resulting in important social and political repercussions; the insurrection was influenced by liberal, anarchist, socialist, agrarian and populist movements which united to fight the status quo in the country. One of the main consequences of the Revolucion Mexicana was that the current political system was instituted; for example, no presidential re-election and the six-year period ruling were instituted as a result of the Revolucion (Katz, 2004; Valadés, 2006). 3 In the late years of the Porfiriato, in Orizaba, Veracruz workers were protesting the poor conditions they had in textile factories. A peaceful strike took place from December 1906 to January 1907, until the Federal Government used state force to contain and repress the movement. This resulted in an unknown number of protesters’ deaths or disappearances (Gonzalez Navarro, 1957). 4 Mexican military forces opened fire on a peaceful student protest in Tlatelolco Square on October 2, 1968. The students’ demands were multiple, including but not limited to unanimous rejection of police brutality, and a disagreement with the customs and practices of the PRI, freedom of all political prisoners, suppression of the crimes of social dissolution, compensation to victims of repressive acts, elimination of the Cuerpo de Granaderos [Grenadier Corps], among others (Aguayo, 2015). Some historians argue that the Mexican government was pressured by hosting the Olympic Games, under the threat that these would be cancelled if the disturbances continued. The death estimate remains unconfirmed: the government reported about 20, but some journalists suggest that up to 400 deaths occurred (Aguayo, 2015; Gonzalez Ruiz, 2008; Rodda, 2010).

23 behaviour” (Rios Contreras, 2013:63), accounting for the recent rampant rise in organised crime.

One of the main traits of the upsurge in violence in recent years is that violence has extended to states and municipalities previously considered „safer‟, particularly with regard to homicides (Guerrero-Gutierrez, 2012). In addition, variations in the types of violence have appeared. For example, high impact crimes such as kidnapping have increased: in 2015 five states –Tamaulipas, Estado de México, Veracruz, Guerrero and Tabasco – accounted for 61 per cent of the national reported cases (Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, 2015). However, while violence is often portrayed as narco related this is not always the case and „everyday violence‟ (Moser and McIlwaine , 2003) – ranging from domestic to economic violence – is also important to consider, as it has become manifest throughout the country. Journalists in Mexico have noted that “the government wants everything to be narco-related, because it is their way of burying it, of extending the „mantle of impunity‟” (interview Valdez, nd, cited in Rios Piter, 2017).

However, the policy responses to violence in Mexico have prioritised a militarisation5 approach resulting from this simplified vision that all kinds of violence are narco-related. This assumption has implications for violence reduction approaches, and has arguably turned a problem of national security into a public security issue (Fuentes et al, 2011). However, an analysis that looks into the role that urban space plays in reducing the perceptions of insecurity has been narrowly studied. There have been some attempts to reduce violence through interventions in the built environment, with limited achievements. Violence and insecurity represent major challenges, which are reflected into urban spaces of Mexican cities. The country is going through a period in its development that should be understood in all its complexity in order to design and implement adequate responses to violence issues.

Nonetheless, there has been less focus on the state as perpetrator of structural violence - without the direct victim-offender relationship. This view

5 Militarisation is a term often used in public policies responding to violence in the context of Mexico. This refers to the presence of members of the Armed Forces [Fuerzas Armadas] becoming notorious in different regions, social realms and public spaces, in the context of Mexico (Palacios, 2000).

24 permits a critical analysis of planning processes and the ways in which inadvertently (through planning) the state encourages and cements socio-spatial segregations which creates „a breeding ground‟ for the appearance of new forms of violence and urban insecurity.

This thesis aims to show that, manifestations of violence at neighbourhood level are more nuanced than recognised by officials, and that these manifestations have an impact on the way citizens perceive and use urban space, which in turn has implications for planning processes and responses to violence.

1.3 Research questions, aims and objectives

Using the ecological framework for violence, the research aims to build on and contribute to the debates which link the built environment and urban violence. It scrutinises planning policies and programmes in order to analyse their potential as a response to and a cause of violence. More specifically, the thesis looks at citizens‟ perceptions of different types of violence and their interaction with the urban space, and analyses the role of planning in producing urban space. The role of planning in the appearance of violence is critically examined through citizens‟ perceptions of insecurity. With these issues in mind, the following research questions were formulated in order to guide the research:

1. What are the different manifestations of urban violence and insecurity in Mexico? 2. How do manifestations of urban violence relate to urban space? 3. How does violence affect citizens‟ views, understanding, and use of urban space? 4. How do urban planning systems interact with, and affect the relationship between, urban violence and urban space?

Acknowledging that violence in Mexico varies greatly, the thesis is based on a case-study approach of four communities in two Mexican cities. The purpose is to compare a relatively violent city, Culiacan in the state of Sinaloa, with a safer one, Aguascalientes, in the state of Aguascalientes. Additionally, the research compares how citizens‟ perceptions of violence vary within each city,

25 with central/periphery logic, whilst analysing the role of planning in the configuration of urban space in the two cities.

Through mixed-methods of data collection such as surveys and semi- structured interviews, this research analyses, firstly, the different manifestations of urban violence and their links; secondly, and aided by participatory methods of data collection, the spatial distribution of violence, the characteristics of its concentration in certain urban spaces and its effects in communities; and, lastly, the role of Mexico‟s planning system in these processes using semi-structured interviews, and document and discourse analysis.

In particular, in order to explore the „perceptual dimension‟ of urban violence, participatory methods of data collection were employed. The research found that people‟s lived and indirect experiences of violence affect the way they conceive, live in and use urban space, redefining how citizens relate to each other as they change their activities and limit their interactions with each other. The research argues that this has direct implications and is reflected in urban space and cities, but planning often overlooks this, affecting the quality and effectiveness of planning responses to violence. Hence, the ways in which violence has redefined Mexican cities, provoking the appearance of new forms of urban living, enhancing the fragmentation of urban space and overall augmenting feelings of insecurity are analysed.

1.4 Structure of the thesis

The thesis is structured in nine chapters. Chapter two explores theories which analyse the links between urban violence, insecurity and urban space such as broken windows, defensible space and crime prevention through environmental design, that have been highly influential in shaping planning responses to urban violence. Urban space and planning processes are also analysed as a potential cause of and response to violence, particularly looking at socio-spatial inequalities. Since the concept of urban space is central to my research, Lefebvre‟s framework, which includes much more than just concrete, built or even public space is introduced in this chapter. Also here, the conceptual framework informing the definition of violence used throughout the thesis is

26 presented: the ecological framework for violence, which allows understanding urban violence in a multi-faceted way. The ecological and conceptual frameworks presented here are revisited to in chapters eight and nine The concluding section of chapter two likewise introduces the research questions..

The data used to answer the research questions were collected using a mixed-method approach, which is discussed in chapter three, also discussing how research questions will be answered based on the ontological and epistemological positions underpinning these. Chapter three likewise discusses the methodological choices for data collection and analysis. For the research, the four case study communities within two cities are considered, along with the methods of data collection including surveys, semi-structured interviews and participatory methods such as participatory planning and solicited photography. The chapter then concludes by discussing ethical issues which arose during fieldwork.

Chapter four introduces the empirical setting at national, state and city level, expanding on some of the issues discussed before regarding urban space, planning processes and violence in Mexico. The chapter presents the two city case studies: Culiacan and Aguascalientes, providing a brief background in terms of economy, demographics and main traits of both cities. In order to understand the current configuration of urban space in the two cities and in the national context, the planning structures, legislation and, in each case, municipal development plans and relevant organisational structures are analysed. Lastly, a section offering a characterisation of violence through official data and statistics in Culiacan and Aguascalientes is presented. In this way, this chapter helps to „set the scene‟ at national and city level.

Chapter five critically analyses the conditions of urban space in the four case-study communities: characteristics of the inhabitants, built environment, services, and infrastructure. Overall, the chapter introduces the empirical setting for exploring the themes outlined in the literature review, in the context of four communities; chapter five is the second empirical chapter dealing with urban space and planning issues, here done at community level.

Chapter six and seven present key findings relating to specific research questions, namely: what are the violence manifestations in the communities

27 according to residents and how these relate to the urban space. The inhabitants of central and peripheral communities identify hot spots or places associated with violence and insecurity, limiting their activities at night around certain hot spots, and ultimately changing the way communities use and perceive urban space; they also recognise failures in community planning and infrastructure, such as lack of pavements and public lighting that affect people's perceptions of security. Furthermore, residents are aware that such spaces are perceived as „very dangerous places‟ and „no-go places‟.

Chapter eight presents a comparative analysis of the four community case studies, with peripheral/peripheral and central/central logic, in order to compare within and between cities. This chapter allows us to discern differences and similarities regarding planning and urban space, which might have an effect on perceptions of insecurity in specific contexts.

Chapter nine presents the conclusions of the thesis and answers the research questions. The ecological framework for violence presented in chapter two is returned to, in light of the violence and planning-related findings from the four communities; similarly, a synthesis of empirical findings in relation to the research questions is presented, as well as some thoughts about theoretical and policy implications. The chapter ends by outlining suggestions for future research.

CHAPTER 2 Understanding the relations between violence, insecurity, space and planning

Rather than viewing violence as a personal deviation from societal norms, it is more appropriate to consider it a product of structural inequalities, a social phenomenon in which multiple actors resort to the use of violence under similar social circumstances and in mutually reinforcing ways, not as isolated individuals. (Sanchez, 2006:181).

Introduction

Violence, crime and insecurity have become ubiquitous in cities, especially in Latin America (Briceño-León et al, 2008; Concha-Eastman, 2002; Rotker and Goldman, 2002). Trying to make sense of these „new‟ phenomena, and as scholars and policy makers try to further understand crime and violence, two approaches have emerged as dominant. The first focuses on the origins, nature and extent of violence, and the reasons for it spreading in cities of the developing world. The second approach centres on policy-oriented strategies and actions aiming to prevent and reduce the levels of crime and violence (Davis, 2012).

This research is positioned between these two perspectives: on the one hand, it analyses interpersonal manifestations of urban violence and their interaction with urban spaces; and on the other, it examines the role of planning both as a potential cause as well as a response to violence. In this sense, it looks at the impact violence and insecurity have on urban space, through citizens‟ perceptions.

In order to situate this research within historic and current debates, the first section of this chapter examines some of the dominant theories and definitions of violence and insecurity, and the importance of people‟s perceptions of violence in these conceptual debates. As the research focuses on direct interpersonal violence, and urban planning as a potential response to and causal factor in certain violence manifestations, it tries to understand the multi- dimensional types of violence through an ecological conceptual framework (WHO, 2016). The second section explores the impact that urban development planning might have on urban space and violence incidence. Drawing on the concept of

„the violence of urbanisation‟ (Pedrazzini et al, 2014) and Lefebvre‟s (1986) discussion about how urban space is produced, the section explores how these urban planning processes can be understood as a potential cause of certain types of violence. Special attention is given to the effects that neoliberal policies have on cities. The third section analyses planning responses to violence and the theories behind these policies and practices. In section four the conceptual framework guiding the thesis is presented; concluding comments are presented in section five.

2.1 Defining violence and insecurity

Violence has been recognised as a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, studied by many disciplines, each adding their particular value and perspective (Imbusch et al, 2006; Winton, 2004). Given its complexity, the greatest difficulty for understanding violence is its conceptualisation. Traditionally, violence has been defined as „the intentional use of force or power with a predetermined end by which one or more persons produce physical, mental or sexual injury, injure the freedom of movement, or cause the death of another person or persons‟ (Concha-Eastman, 2002:44). Violence also can be understood and categorised according to different factors, including the types or manifestations of violence, the level of their impact; or identifying the victims or the perpetrators of violent acts (World Bank, 2011; Shaw, 2009).

Levels of analysis and disciplines’ perspectives Violence can be analysed regarding its levels of impact. For example, while direct violence includes inflicting physical or psychological harm on a person or group, indirect violence may be incited as a means to gain access to perceived or real valuable goods as social, political, or economic goals (Eisner, 2009). At the macro-level, structural violence – violence without the victim- perpetrator direct relation – might be built into uneven economic resources and power structures (Pansters, 2012; Galtung, 1969). This refers to institutions that both generate and maintain inequalities across individuals and between groups (World Bank, 2011) and therefore generate conditions for violence and insecurity to appear (Davis, 2012).

The focus of my research is on direct interpersonal violence (World Bank, 2011; Imbusch et al, 2011), commonly understood to be motivated by the intention of violently attaining material gains. However, it must be clarified that for the scope of this thesis the subjective motivations behind, or the causes of, violence are not the main focus. The research looks at what are the manifestations of urban violence in urban space, and examines critically urban planning as a process which might respond to but also be conducive to some manifestations of violence; that is, a form of structural violence.

The research thus attempts to analyse direct interpersonal violence and macro-level factors that might have an impact on the appearance of violence, in this case with a particular focus on planning. For this reason, perspectives from sociology, anthropology, criminology, and planning are discussed below, as they provide standpoints both at micro- and macro-levels of analysis. These disciplines and the theories discussed below were selected for their diverse but complementary analytical strengths: for example, regarding levels of analysis, behavioural theories focus on individual and relationship levels, while socio- environmental theories accentuate the importance of contextual factors at social and community levels, given that most crimes have a degree of socio- environmental design and management components – e.g. location (Tijerino, 1998).

Since the thesis has a contextual focus – e.g. urban space and planning – a sociological point of view, which aims at studying and understanding the causes of violence, is helpful in acknowledging the underlying critical factors associated with violence. With this approach, violence is seen as a result of a social process (Alonso and Hita, 2013). Adding to this, from an anthropological standpoint, Moser and McIlwaine (2006) argue that internal and external factors as well as variations of social and economic conditions can frequently be associated with increasing levels of violence and insecurity. This anthropological perspective is therefore essential for my research, as it regards citizens‟ perceptions of violence as central.

Violence is thus viewed as a social process (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois, 2003) – similar to urban space which is socially constructed – which

31 interacts with urban space, understood from a citizen‟s perspective. In this sense, a focus on planning allows analysing the impacts of urbanisation and how the configuration of social – and planning – processes can act as determinant risk factor affecting urban space and in turn inciting certain types of violence (Davis, 2014; Pedrazzini et al, 2014; (Moser, 2004).

Behavioural theories Individual – or micro-level – theories of violence also analyse behavioural components, which scrutinise why individuals engage with violent behaviour or criminal activities (Jacoby, 2008). Two competing behavioural theories aim to explain conflict and violence: innate and learnt aggressive behaviour (Jacoby, 2008). Understandings of innate violent behaviour are based on theories about the intrinsically aggressive nature of humans, where violent conflict is seen as an unavoidable part of human interaction – based on a biological focus on the human body as well as “neurological, psychological and hormonal functions” (Jacoby, 2008:67). However, this theory has been widely discredited, since it has been recognised that neither “[humans] have inherited a tendency to make war” nor is “war or any other violent behaviour…genetically programmed into our human nature” (Jacoby, 2008; 85). The second theory of learnt violent behaviour is called the „differential association theory‟ (Agbola, 1997). It claims that the human propensity for violence is rooted in aspects such as culture and religion where violent tendencies are taught, learnt and replicated through societies and history which are constant determinants of this type of behaviour (Jacoby, 2008). Thus, violent behaviour is learnt in intimate personal groups and that human beings may or may not respond violently to a situation. Judgements are made according to external stimuli, and “the tendency to behave aggressively is acquired from individuals‟ socialisation experience and … a range of possible responses to stimuli” (Jacoby, 2008: 101). A combined view of behavioural theories suggests that different forms of behaviour can be fostered depending on the environment, recognising that there are moderators of aggressive or violent behaviour, such as availability of resources. A moderator of violence helps achieve resilience to violence rather than fostering it; for example, resources may act as a moderator of urban violence in highly populated and dense cities. Yet, highly populated cities such as Tokyo

32 or New York are not necessarily the most violent ones, depending on resources levels (World Bank, 2011; Rodgers, 2010). While it might be important to consider biological and individual factors as a basis for the appearance of violence, behavioural theories have been contested. Particularly, the work of Robert Merton (1938) questioned behavioural or biological explanations of violence – or deviance – and proposed the influential anomie theory, which considers the effects of society on individuals‟ decision to engage in crime. The anomie theory started a scholarly tradition focused on social environmental factors. This and similar theories considering socio-environmental factors are discussed below.

Social environmental theories The focus on the study of social environmental factors affecting violence is not new. A long tradition of theory in criminology research has advocated that social environmental factors can predict geographic variations in crime and violence (Hagan, 2012). These theories are among the major theoretical approaches to violence and crime, for example, the relative deprivation theory (Walker and Pettigrew, 1984) and the anomie or strain theory (Merton, 1938). Anomie is rooted in the work of Emile Durkheim, even though the term „anomie‟ appeared as early as 1591; Durkheim (1897/1951 in Hagan, 2012:159) viewed anomie as “moral malaise, a lack of clear-cut norms with which to guide human conduct”. This normlessness may occur in three ways: firstly, because of a failure of individuals to internalise societal norms; secondly, due to an inability to adjust to changing norms; or thirdly, due to conflict within the norms themselves (Hagan, 2012). The anomie theory later influenced several criminological theorists, among them Robert Merton. For Merton (1938) there is a disjuncture between cultural values of success and social structure or the means of achieving it; in other words, anomie is a discrepancy between the goals imposed by society and the means available for their achievement. As Merton suggests, antisocial behaviour or crime is produced by the values of society itself, which encourage high material aspirations as a sign of success, without providing for all the means of achieving these goals (Hagan, 2012). Anomie, also referred to as social alienation or the construction of „otherness‟ (Jacoby, 2008) can occur in any society where social

33 disruption – eg sudden economic crisis or prosperity, rapid technological change – causes people to aim at goals that are structurally unattainable (Agbola, 1997). The anomie theory is related to both issues of structural violence and theories of insecurity, which will be discussed further below. Two major critiques have been made of the anomie theory. One points out that this theory predicts too much crime from the lower strata of society, excluding high-class criminality; and the other focuses on its limitations, arguing that it is primarily directed towards explaining monetary or materialistically oriented crime and leaves out to some extent other types of violence (Taylor et al, 1973 in Hagan, 2012). Conversely, to Merton (1938), higher crime rates are expected in societies with greater degrees of inequality or relative deprivation, or where the gap between the material assets of the rich and the poor is larger (Kawachi et al, 1999). Indeed, previous studies recognised that several societal variables affect violence and crime. For example, Kawachi et al (1999) suggest two sets of societal variables or characteristics that can influence the level of crime: first, the degree of relative deprivation in a society, which can be measured by income inequality, and second, the degree of social cohesion in a community, measured by social capital or collective efficacy (Ferguson and Mindel, 2007; Morenoff et al, 2001). The relative deprivation theory refers to the idea that feelings of deprivation and discontent are related to a desired point of reference e.g. „have‟ and „have not‟; relative deprivation is similar to the anomie theory in that, feelings of relative deprivation arise when goals – not only material ones – are blocked by society (Morrison, 1971). Hence, visibly high inequalities in material assets tend to produce resentment that, in turn, disrupts the social fabric of a community (Kawachi et al, 1999). Studies have established that the emergence of violent behaviour is determined by a combination of macro- and micro-level factors – also referred to as structural causes and trigger factors (Moser, 2004) – that have an impact on someone‟s decision to engage with violence. More precisely, the World Bank (2011:19) established that “there is no one direct cause in personal development” that leads straight to violent behaviour; nonetheless, several characteristics of an individual‟s biology, personality, and environment impose certain stresses that have been acknowledged to increment risk factors that induce individuals to 34 perpetrate or experience violence (World Bank, 2011). These risk factors are analysed at different levels of impact, individual and societal, and from a public health approach, and have been synthesised in the „ecological framework for violence‟ (World Health Organisation, 2016).

Ecological framework for violence The ecological model or framework allows an understanding of violence according to risk factors affecting different levels of analysis. This means that violence cannot be explained by a single variable; rather, interpersonal violence is seen as a product of interacting factors at individual, relationship, community and societal levels (World Health Organisation, 2016).

This framework has been used in a variety of disciplines, such as public health, psychology, and sociology. Conceptually, it is a broad paradigm which attempts to bridge several theories and disciplines, mainly drawing attention to the importance of multi-level and multi-dimensional approaches to social relations and phenomena (Kemp, 2015). As early as the 1930s, the Chicago School, in proposing that qualitative methodologies as naturalistic observation would be best fitted for the study of urban and social phenomena, introduced the idea of exploring the complexities of social interactions through ecological models (Lutters and Ackerman, 1996).

„Ecological‟ referred to the study of the relations between an organism and its surroundings, in this case, social units of analysis, i.e. individuals, communities and their social and urban environments (Kemp, 2015; Lutters and Ackerman, 1996). Thus, social interactions and structures were viewed as an intricate network of dynamic processes, as those in an ecosystem (Lutters and Ackerman, 1996); consequently, the ecological model “emerged from actively examining the parallels between natural and social systems” (Lutters and Ackerman, 1996:4).

Even when concepts alluding to the ecological model were introduced by the Chicago School proponents, these were not developed into theories and a framework per se until the 1970s and 1980s (Lutters and Ackerman, 1996). Early examples can be seen in public health approaches which applied the ecological framework, such as Bronfenbrenner (1977) and Garbarino (2001).

Bronfenbrenner (1977) argued that, for comprehending human development, it was necessary to analyse the ecological system where growth happens. In this ecological system, Bronfenbrenner (1977) identified five categories or levels: individual, micro-system, meso-system, exo-system and macro-system. Here, the macro-system comprises the attitudes or ideologies of the culture; neighbours or family friends represent the exo-system; and the meso-system is the linkages or processes, in other words a system of micro-systems. Lastly, a micro-system encompasses interpersonal relationships (Bronfenbrenner, 1977).

Similarly, Garborino (2001) extrapolates an accumulation risk model used to assess the effects that chronic violence in urban war zones has on children. In doing so he analyses how as risks – or negative influences – accumulate to the point of exceeding a child‟s „breaking point‟, then opportunities or positive influences rise and “recovery and enhanced development increases” (Garbarino, 2001:363). According to the author, the ecological framework or „risk accumulation model‟ is helpful in understanding the effects of community violence on children, predicting that children and youth facing negative risks do so in environments where they are already exposed to risks. Examples include living in socially excluded areas, living in poverty, being part of broken families, or experiencing substance abuse.

More recently, the World Health Organisation (2016) has applied the ecological framework, to violence prevention from a public health approach. In the ecological framework the same importance is given to the interaction among risk factors at all levels, as well as the relations within each level. The levels employed by the World Health Organisation are individual, interpersonal, community and societal (WHO, 2016). For example, at individual level, biological traits and personal history might influence individuals‟ behaviour, either increasing or decreasing the likelihood of becoming a victim or a perpetrator (WHO, 2016). These include but are not limited to: having experienced child abuse or neglect, mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, and aggressive behaviour (WHO, 2016). At this level, personal relationships also have great influence; for instance, having violent family or friends, or violent intimate partners might have an influence on a persons‟ engagement in violence or becoming a victim (WHO, 2016).

Similarly, the community context or the physical settings where social relations exist encompass potential risk factors influencing the individual to engage in violence. Background characteristics of the area, zoning uses such as schools or workplaces, population density, employment opportunities and youth unemployment are all examples of risk factors (WHO, 2016). This contextual community component of the framework is of great importance for my research, since it aims to pay close attention to the interaction between urban space and urban violence. Particularly, the approach taken in this research will argue, that infrastructure, services, and the configuration of the urban space have an effect on people‟s perception of insecurity and violence, similar to the actual experiencing of violence.

Likewise, societal factors may influence whether violence is encouraged or inhibited (WHO, 2016). These consist of macro-level factors which provoke, maintain or enhance social and economic inequalities, such as national policies. Macro-level factors may also include the availability of fire-arms, social acceptance of violence, or „normalisation‟ of domestic violence (Muggah, 2014, 2012; OECD, 2016).

In summary, the ecological framework allows analysing and further understanding risk factors and causes of violence in a multi-dimensional manner. My research will argue that adding an urban dimension of analysis to the ecological framework of violence, allows a closer look at how urban planning, as well as changes in the socio-spatial structure of cities, may affect the incidence of violence. Thus understanding the role of urbanisation and planning processes in generating certain types of violence is central to my research and will be elaborated upon in section 2.2.

Violence manifestations and perceptions of insecurity

With the ecological framework as a basis, a discussion about what urban violence entails is necessary. As mentioned in the introduction chapter, contemporary manifestations of violence and insecurity have been recognised to be increasingly „urban‟, in the context of Latin America (Glebbeek and Koonings,

2016). This sub-section provides a definition of what urban violence is, as well as working definitions of violence classifications, and a discussion about the importance of perceptions of insecurity.

In Latin America, three characteristics that define violence as „urban‟ have been identified (Glebbeek and Koonings, 2016). Firstly, urban violence is applied as a territorial control mechanism by criminal actors ie 'gangs', mostly for economic gain; this is discussed in chapters 7 and 8. Secondly, due to demographic density, the visibility and impact of urban violence are more prominent. This is closely linked to the third characteristic, that urban violence and insecurity are seen as widespread or endemic conditions, which are a result of both direct and indirect experiences (Glebbeek and Koonings, 2016). These characteristics add to the discussion about the importance of perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, explored further below.

Urban violence can be understood as a phenomenon manifested through pervasive territorial control mechanisms which affect large sections of the population, directly or indirectly (Glebbeek and Koonings, 2016). Additional to this set of characteristics, a distinction of „urban‟ violence is the fact that it encompasses a myriad of manifestations of violence that are often linked (Moser and Horn, 2011; Moser, 2004). Thus urban violence is not one, but many types of violence. Rather than having a fixed definition, it manifests itself through a continuum of „violences‟ (Auyero and de Lara, 2012). Moser (2004) and Winton (2004) recognise four broad, often overlapping categories, based on the motivation behind the physical act of engaging in violence. These categories are social, political, economic and institutional violence.

Social violence can be defined as gender-based, domestic or ethnic violence. This term is quite comprehensive and can encompass territorial or identity-based violence, such as gangs (Moser, 2004). Political violence includes manifestations of violence that are driven by the goal of achieving or maintaining political power; it can be manifested as guerrilla or paramilitary conflict or political assassination (Moser, 2004). Economic violence is motivated by direct material or economic gain; it can include low-impact events such as street crime, mugging, and robbery; and high-impact types such as kidnapping and drugs

(Moser, 2004). Lastly, institutional violence is defined as direct or indirect violence performed by state institutions. It can be direct and involve the police and judicial authorities, but also indirect, for example when citizens are stopped from gaining access to services or opportunities such as health, education or employment.

Another recognised category is structural violence. It occurs when violence exists without the victim-perpetrator direct relation, e.g. violence built into uneven economic resources and power structures (Pansters, 2012; Galtung, 1969), as discussed above. As the range of types of urban violence and crime are complex and context-specific, Moser (2004) distinguishes between structural causes and trigger risk factors.

Structural causes refer, generally speaking, to unequal power relations, while trigger risk factors comprehend situational circumstances that can aggravate the possibility of violence occurring (Moser, 2004). The distinction is important for this thesis since the research focuses on both in two ways: firstly, by looking at situational circumstances e.g. conditions of the built environment, violence impacts on urban space; and secondly, by examining structural causes, in particular planning processes which create conditions allowing certain types of violence to occur. Thus the differentiation between structural and risk factors underpinning violence helps to support the point that no single cause provokes, determines or explains violence (Moser, 2004). This point is precisely what the ecological model tries to highlight through its multidimensional approach.

Although the categories are widely accepted and used, there are some limitations to the conception of static classifications of violence (Moser, and Horn, 2011). It has been recognised that establishing categories of violence is somewhat problematic since violence manifestations usually overlap or are linked, and these relations are more fluid than is often assumed (Moser and McIlwaine, 2014). Nevertheless, while there are no „hard boundaries‟ between these types of violence, the justification for using categories is that, generally, these are necessary as a means to design interventions and policies to prevent or reduce urban violence (Moser, 2004). What this means is that, in policy terms, the conception and classification of violence might determine the type of intervention

39 designed to respond to violence (Howard et al, 2007; Moser and McIlwaine, 2006, 2014).

More recently, the concept of „violence chains‟ has been formulated, similar to a „value chain‟, stressing the way in which violence operates „systematically‟ and is the result of many “interconnected processes, though these may not necessarily be immediately obvious” (Moser and Horn, 2011:11). Moser and Horn (2011) propose three levels of analysis or levels of the chain; firstly, the components of the chain, or the different manifestations of violence; secondly, the processes which configure these together; and thirdly, the fashion in which these might be embedded within broader institutional and contextual factors. The violence chains concept is used later in this thesis as an analytical framework to examine the empirical evidence gathered which as will be shown, is applicable to peripheral areas.

Perceiving insecurity The uncertainty generated by violence is experienced by citizens through fear of crime and insecurity (Rotker, 2002). Fear of crime has been defined as “the emotional response to possible violent crime and physical harm [and] an emotional response of dread or anxiety to crime or symbols that a person associates with crime” (Wynne, 2008:3). Fear of crime impacts negatively on citizens‟ routines and habits, limiting the performance of activities that they should be free to make, including impacting on their freedom to move between urban spaces (Vilalta, 2012). In recent decades, sociologists working in Latin America have looked at the implications that insecurity, fear of crime, and „spectacular violence‟ have in social relations (Villarreal, 2015), and how certain „practices of insecurity‟ redefine relationships with authorities and power, as well as between citizens and space (Rotker, 2002).

Insecurity, similar to violence, is a complex concept to define. To Goldstein (2012:4) insecurity is “to occupy a habitus of fear and uncertainty that is at once social, physiological and material”; it can be expressed by a person‟s lack of power to protect their livelihood, security of tenure, food, employment or even emotional security. To live in insecurity – generally speaking – is to conceive the world as unpredictable and intrinsically dangerous; to be in a

40 constant state of alarm and to be forced to fight for survival (Goldstein, 2012). Insecurity is thus a lived experience based on direct experience of violence, as much as it is mentally conceived, based on indirect experience, for millions of people living in Latin American cities (Rotker and Goldman, 2002). In the region, insecurity and fear of crime have increased exponentially, without necessarily always being supported by crime statistics (see chapter 4) (Davis, 2014). Indeed, in Latin America, and in Mexico particularly, insecurity has become accepted as a reality and is constantly generalised by the media (Goldstein, 2012).

Social science researchers, development practitioners and planners have all been concerned with the effects of violence on different aspects of citizens‟ daily lives (Howard et al, 2007; Kressler, 2015). These effects can be felt in all public spheres, social, economically and spatially. Insecurity has the possibility to become a great obstacle to solidarity and peaceful civic coexistence (Goldstein, 2012); it has the capability of enhancing violence and crime, since fear of crime and insecurity might cause people to demand repressive responses to violence and consequently ignore human rights and democratic governance. In other words, the construction of imminent insecurity can also be used by authoritarian governments to justify greater restrictions on the individual rights of citizens (Goldstein, 2012). Conversely, insecurity is closely linked to the state‟s inability to provide public security to protect its citizens; and thus levels of insecurity often remain unchanged despite policy implementations and harsh violence reduction strategies, as in the case of Latin America (Goldstein, 2012).

Insecurity in urban life diminishes quality of life, limits community life, reduces social interactions among community members, and exacerbates distrust in communities (Moser, 2004). In particular, the peripheries of cities, which house many of the urban poor, are often seen as problematic and violence-prone. Some authors (Davis, 2014) argue that, even though violence is not speciﬁc to poor neighbourhoods, it thrives in informal or poor communities, since citizens have been left to produce their own livelihoods and patterns of urban development relating both to the regulation of urban development and to the renforcing of the rule of law. This last point is central and will be returned to in the following section.

Theories of insecurity and fear of crime have highlighted several endogenous and exogenous variables. For example, some authors (Carro et al, 2010; Miceli et al, 2004) have considered variables such as the level of objective crime (similar to the victimisation theory), where the experience of being victim of a crime involves psychological and material effects, increasing individuals‟ proclivity to feel more insecure, compared with the opposite situation of non- victimisation or not having been victims of crime (Vilalta, 2011; Bissler, 2003; Skogan, 1990; Garofalo, 1979). The characteristics of urban life (Skogan and Maxﬁeld, 1981), such as density, difﬁculty of social integration, size of buildings, the „aggressiveness‟ of street life, and the level of vegetation have also been analysed (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001). Socio-demographic variables have been considered in theories such as the physical vulnerability theory, which argues that feelings of insecurity will be higher among individuals physically less able to defend themselves from an attack (Bissler, 2003;Pantazis, 2000). In other words, vulnerable groups by age and gender, e.g. women and the elderly, will feel more insecure. However, the perceptions of these groups do not always relate to their experience of crime; in fact, these groups are not the most affected by violence according to official statistics (Vilalta, 2012; Vilata, 2011a).

Psycho-social variables have also been considered, which echoes the social vulnerability theory and suggests that feelings of insecurity can be predicted by the degree of disadvantage regarding crime that some sectors of the population share. Vulnerability may be either due to a lower capacity for crime prevention derived from socio-economic vulnerability, or by the posterior inability to recover from it (Skogan, 1990). These theories point to several elements for understanding insecurity e.g. age, gender, social networks, victimisation, incivility (see below), etc.

More recently, emphasis has been put on the elements linked to exogenous factors, physical conditions and urban space, that is, contextual factors (Wilcox et al, 2003). Issues like „residential satisfaction‟ (Ramírez and Corraliza, 1998); (Martinez et al, 2002) and place or „neighbourhood attachment‟(Brown et al, 2003) and „sense of community‟ (Wilson-Doenges, 2000) are being included in the “set of insecurity perception explanatory variables” (Carro et al, 2010:305).

Others have studied physical or social uncivil behaviour, also referred to as the incivility theory, especially focusing on the exogenous – contextual – variables affecting insecurity (Vilalta, 2011; (Bissler, 2003; Doran and Lees, 2005; Shaw and McKay, 1969; Vilalta, 2012). This theory, proposes that inhabitants of areas with signs of social disorder and physical deterioration will present higher levels of perceptions of insecurity. The causal mechanism proposed by Shaw and McKay (1969) emphasises how signs of incivility represent a generalised situation of lack of control, low social cohesion, and political negligence (Vilalta, 2012). The signs of incivility are identified in two categories: physical and social disorder (Skogan, 1990). For example, the presence of physical disorder in the built environment is reflected through graffiti, dirty sidewalks, abandoned buildings and deserted or delapidated homes; this theory of insecurity echoes the broken windows theory (see section 2.3). Both of these theories are returned to in chapters 6 and 7.

As violence and insecurity have become one of the most pervasive characteristics of cities (Amerio and Roccato, 2005), emphasis on context results in the depiction of certain urban spaces as „dangerous places‟ (Corraliza and Ramírez, 1997; Fernández Ramírez, 1995; Wilcox et al, 2003). These are defined as “[a] place or scene that the person associates with possible criminal or marginal activities, in the absence of possible social supports” (Ramírez and Corraliza, 1998; Carro et al, 2010). The convergence of endogenous and exogenous factors affecting perceptions of insecurity in urban spaces occurs in what Ramirez and Corraliza (1998:305) call „representations of space‟, which refers to “variables related to direct or indirect previous experiences in the place and its surroundings, as well as the processes of social inﬂuence that determine the representation of a dangerous place”.

This last point, and the overall representations and configurations of space in relation to perceptions of insecurity and violence are central to my research and are employed in later analytical chapters. In support of this, section 2.2 discusses the conceptualisation of urban space, and the role of planning processes in generating urban development patterns that in certain ways might attract violence and insecurity.

This section presented several theories that undertake different levels of analysis to explain the appearance of violence and insecurity. In order to understand the effects of context (i.e. urban space) on violence, the ecological framework provides an interesting and multi-faceted way to move forward. Thus, the next section explores the role of planning in generating certain socio-spatial patterns of urban development, which in turn might attract or influence certain violence manifestations.

2.2 Urban space and planning processes

The link between violence and urbanisation is being increasingly recognised and studied (Muggah, 2014; Patel and Burkle, 2012). Changes in the manifestations and incidence of violence are being linked to rapid urbanisation, internal migration processes, and inequality in many countries, especially in Latin America (Muggah, 2014). However, a direct link between urbanisation and violence is difficult to prove (Rodgers, 2010) since the relation between violence and the built environment is neither automatic nor direct. This section explores this relation, drawing from concepts like „the violence of urbanisation‟ and analysing debates which argue that new forms of spatial urban planning might be generating or exacerbating certain forms of urban violence.

Planning, neoliberalism and urban space Similar to violence, the concept of „planning‟ is elusive. Planning, “[a]t its most narrow […] may be viewed as those statutory tasks undertaken by professional planners; at its widest, planning concerns any intervention or action associated with space and place, and is not restricted to the activities of „planners‟ but includes policy makers, politicians, as well as civil society” (Campbell et al, 2014:47). Similarly, Yiftachel, (1998:2) defines planning as

the formulation, content and implementation of spatial public policies. In other words, the practice of 'planning' … includes all public policies which affect urban and regional development, zoning and land use, or what is often termed the 'public production of space'. It thus includes urban, regional and national spatial policies performed directly or indirectly under the auspices of the modern state. From this broad definition, an underlying spatial planning (e.g. physical aspects of planning or physical constructions) is differentiated from planning as

44 equated to „spatial governance‟ (Healey, 1997). Furthermore, this broader definition permits the critical understanding of planning as “a double- edged activity with a potential to act regressively or progressively”, that is, to have as many negative as positive outcomes (Yiftachel, 1998:14).

More recently, and acknowledging that “traditional planning is about maintaining the existing social order rather than challenging and transforming it, and it fails to capture the dynamics and tensions of relations coexisting in particular places” (Albrechts, 2015:104, emphasis added), traditional planning (zoning, land use and master plans) has given way to what is referred to as strategic spatial planning (Albrechts, 2015). Strategic planning is conceived in the literature (Albrechts and Balducci, 2013) as “[an] approach able to cope with the challenges our society is facing and embed structural changes that are needed” (Albrechts, 2015: 511); and is defined as

a socio-spatial process through which a range of people in diverse institutional relations and positions come together to design plan- making processes and develop contents and strategies for the management of spatial change; an opportunity for constructing new ideas and processes that can carry them forward; collective efforts to reimagine a city, urban region, or region. Strategic planning, however, is not a single concept; rather it is a set of “concepts, procedures, and tools that must be tailored carefully to the situation at hand if desirable outcomes are to be achieved” (Albrechts, 2015: 512). This means that strategic planning is not only about the desired outcome, but also about the process (Fainstein, 2005). Yet, the ability of a strategic spatial planning system to deliver the anticipated outcomes depends on the legal and political system underlying it. The concept of strategic planning helps to frame the analysis of the thesis, and it will be discussed further in chapter 4, in the context of Mexican planning. However, it is important to remember that as broad the theoretical concept of planning might be, in practice it is nonetheless bounded by institutional and political contexts, and the character given to it in each specific context (Friedmann, 1998).

Thus, it can be assumed that planning – defined and bounded by its political and institutional context – has the potential to physically and symbolically alter, or create, certain patterns of urban development, which are

45 reflected in urban space and in turn might attract certain manifestations of violence and insecurity. As recognised by Yiftachel (1998:13) urban planning and development can have a significant negative effect – through oppression and homogenisation – “by creating settlement patterns, dispersing or concentrating certain populations, … housing and services in particular places, and governing the character and norms of urban public spaces”.

This conceptualisation of planning has important implications for my research, as Lefebvre (1986) recognises that urban space is produced mainly by two sets of actor – planners and citizens – giving further importance to the role of planning. In his view, inhabitants and the social relations among them are the main constituents of urban space; then, urban space also shapes the social relations – and social processes – of citizens (Colombijn, 2016). So, to some extent, planning dictates the configuration of urban space (Colombijn, 2016).

Without over-simplifying the role of planning and also considering the important role market forces have, this research aims to consider views from both sets of actors: on the one hand, critically examining the process of urban planning for development in Mexican cities – a top-down approach (chapters 4 and 5). Here, the role of the state, market forces, and the issues planning officials face are examined. On the other hand, perceptions of violence and insecurity and how the relation between urban space and violence and insecurity works is presented from the citizens‟ perspective – a bottom-up approach (in chapters 6 and 7).

Planning, and the ways in which urban space is produced and planned for has important implications for development. In the past decades, new and changing patterns of urban development planning have emerged; some argue this is as a result of neoliberal6 policies (Alonso and Hita, 2013; Brenner and Theodore, 2002). Neoliberal policies were implemented to justify the deregulation of state control over large industries, to curtail organised labour, and to account

6 Neoliberalism emerged prominently during the 1970s and 1980s as a political and economic strategy aiming to respond to the economic recession undergone globally in the previous decade. Neoliberal policies are based on the premise that ‘open, competitive and unregulated markets, liberated from all forms of state interference, represent the optimal mechanism for economic development’ (Brenner and Theodore, 2002).

46 for the scarcity of public services and their privatisation as well as the dismantling of welfare programmes, among other measures (Brenner and Theodore, 2002).

Neoliberalism‟s repercussion in cities have arguably been enforced through urban planning processes (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Campbell et al, 2014; Tasan-Kok, 2012; Watson, 2009). This has been vastly documented. For instance, Tasan-Kok (2012:1) argues that “the neoliberalisation of social, economic and political processes pervades urban development, planning and governance discourses and practices, and pushes them in a market-oriented direction”. In other words, Tasan-Kok (2012) argues that neoliberalism has influenced not only the outcome of planning processes e.g. the city itself, but also the processes of planning, by making it market-oriented.

The social, economic and political adjustments derived from neoliberalism have had notorious impacts on the organisation of the urban space, ultimately transforming cities (Thibert and Osorio, 2014). Many researchers, particularly Harvey, (2012) and Soja (2010) have pointed out that “the organisation of productive processes goes hand in hand with the emergence of new spatial forms”, in this case, as a result of the adoption of neoliberalism policies (in Alonso and Hita, 2013:300). Similarly, there is consensus that neoliberalism enforced existing patterns of spatial segregation in several ways (Thibert and Osorio, 2014). For example, neoliberalism enforced spatial segregation indirectly by means of income polarisation. During the 1990s, economic growth was rapid, but this did not decrease the gap between the wealthy and the poor; on the contrary, income inequality became entrenched in several regions of the world, including Latin America (Thibert and Osorio, 2014).

Likewise, neoliberalism reinforced spatial segregation by means of the deregulation of land markets. Neoliberalism displaces investment and land speculation towards the „periphery‟ enabling urban sprawl, but also „suburban development‟ by upper and middle classes (Thibert and Osorio, 2014). Under neoliberalism, “some places, territories and scales are privileged over and against others”, resulting in patterns of “core-periphery polarisation and socio-spatial inequality [which] exist at all spatial scales” (Brenner and Theodore, 2002:355). Ultimately, this results in what has been called „peripheralisation‟ of the poor due

47 to income polarisation (Kühn, 2015; Thibert and Osorio, 2014). According to Kühn (2015) „peripheralisation‟ defines the production of peripheries beyond spatial implications – thus beyond a centre/periphery dichotomy, and primarily based on the importance of social relations and their spatial implications (Kühn, 2015). He distinguishes between „periphery‟ as a synonym for „situated on the fringe‟ versus the forceful processes through which peripheries develop and materialise. This may include political, social, economic or other processes. Thus, peripheralisation refers to more than „living in the outskirts‟; rather, the peripheralisation is closer to definitions of „marginalisation‟ (Kühn, 2015).

This „spatial model‟ encouraged by neoliberalism has promoted the fragmentation of urban space through differentiation and segregation based on different factors, predominantly economic and social. As Alonso and Hita (2013) argue, the territorial modifications encouraged by neoliberalism go hand in hand with a change of „space-perception‟ norms which in turn affect collective imaginaries, or collective conceptions of space, altering as well social and cultural practices. This „new‟ perception of space – and physical construction of cities – is thus built around the mode of production, and generally, around the power of a capital and global economy (Sassen, 2002). As such, this means that „strategic‟ places emerge while others, usually the city peripheries, are marginalised in the city.

Two points emerge from this discussion: firstly, the important role of the mental construction of urban space, and secondly, the link between spatial inequalities and urban violence and insecurity. My research is informed by Lefebvre‟s conception of urban space, which goes beyond narrow physical conceptualisations of space and suggests a broader analysis. Rather than focusing primarily on limited understandings of space – e.g. physical configurations, morphologies and the built physical environment–, the social functions and conceptions of space are included. These include, “spatial experience[s] and everyday life” (Soja, 2001:3). Urban space is thus more than a mere physical setting; it is a complex „social formation‟, an intrinsic and essential part of social processes (Soja, 2001:4).

Defining urban space Lefebvre‟s concept is useful in analysing the interactions between spatial inequalities and urban violence. For Lefebvre (1991), urban space includes much more than just concrete, built or public space. Lefebvre's idea of space includes what he refers to as perceived, conceived and lived space (Purcell, 2002; Lefebvre, 1991). Perceived space is where people meet, and whatever they discern as their built environment. Conceived space is people‟s mental construction of space, their feelings of belonging and identity towards a particular space; whether it is a street on which they grew up, or a public park, people create ideas and representations of space (Purcell, 2002; Lefebvre, 1991). Lived space is the intricate combination of perceived and conceived space. Lived space represents how a person really experiences space in everyday life: “Lived space is not just a passive stage on which social life unfolds, but represents a constituent element of social life” (Purcell, 2002:102). This conception of urban space is particularly important, for, as put succinctly by (Soja, 2001): 4, emphasis added) “looking at social phenomena, therefore, physical space matters a great deal, but the spatiality of social life extends far beyond physical forms and directly measurable surface appearances”.

Thus, social relations and lived space are inevitably linked together in everyday life. The production of urban space, in Purcell‟s (2002) words, unavoidably entails reproducing the social relations that are attached to it. As a consequence, producing urban space goes far beyond planning the material, built space of a city; “it involves producing and reproducing all aspects of urban life” (Purcell, 2002:102). So, for Lefebvre urban space is the consolidation of a particular mode of production, but meanwhile it is also a mental product, a collective conception of the city (Purcel, 2002; Lefebvre, 1991). As such, and with consideration of the effects production modes have had in cities, several issues have arisen; namely, privatisation of space and socio-spatial inequalities which arguably have led to the consolidation of „the violence of urbanisation‟ (Pedrazzini et al, 2014).

Socio-spatial inequalities and the ‘violence of urbanisation’ The territorial organisation of cities increasingly reflects inequalities physically in the built environment (Alonso and Hita, 2013). The fragmentation of 49 the city is determined by spatial inequalities. Spatial inequalities are witnessed in many cities around the world; however, authors have argued that spatial segregation “has long been and continues to be a deﬁning characteristic” of Latin American cities, where a mix of “high inequality and low social mobility” exacerbates patterns of spatial segregation in the region (Thibert and Osorio, 2014:1319). The concept of segregation has been used to “identify and explain different dimensions of urban exclusion and socio-spatial differentiation” (Ruiz- Rivera and van Lindert, 2016:1).

Perceptions of violence and insecurity have been recognised to play a role in the spatial segregation of cities. Authors like Caldeira, (1996) noted almost 20 years ago that the rising construction of gated communities was linked to enhanced urban insecurity in Brazil. Urban violence and insecurity may thus be seen both as a cause and a consequence of urban transformations. This has taken many forms, with many examples, from Argentina to Chile to Central America. In Chile, Ward (2009:131) suggests that this occurs in a more subtle way, even by “closing off a street behind chained gates” and “keep[ing] out undesirables”. In Central America, Rodgers, (2004) suggested that „fortified enclaves‟ caused by fear of crime in Managua, Nicaragua contribute to changing patterns of urban spatial organisation in the city. This resulted in what he referred to as the „disembedding‟ of a „layer‟ of the city where elites are segregating themselves through the construction of high speed roads and roundabouts.

Adding to this, Ward (2009:130) suggests that segregation should be looked at or „unpackaged‟ at various scales or levels, specifically for the case of Mexico. Ward (2009:130) purports that, while on a macro-scale there is apparently no “intensification in segregation levels”, at a micro-level, “lines are being drawn in the sand between neighborhoods”. This segregation is reflected in several traits shared by Latin American cities: “closing off streets, creating no-go access zones, and by [citizens] barricading themselves behind high fences and armed guards” (Ward, 2009:130), ultimately resulting in the privatisation of space (Sabatini, 2006).

The privatisation of urban space is further enhanced by urban policies, management of land, and other dynamics of spatial planning. It has been

50 acknowledged that urban policies tend to favour the upper classes and affect poorer neighbourhoods adversely, as in the case of Managua (Alonso and Hita, 2013; Rodgers, 2004). These policies often present an inertia that maintains and strengthens conditions of spatial inequality, social exclusion, and fragmentation (Dammert and Oviedo, 2004); which consequently may contribute to increasing levels of urban violence. Hence, it can be ventured that some urban development planning processes lead violence to persist given the political and social implications they represent.

On the other hand, changes in the configuration of space can also stimulate the appearance of violence (Pedrazzini et al, 2014:394) and aim to “shift the blame [of violence occurrence] to the urbanisation process itself”. Disorganised urban planning characterises urbanisation processes in cities of the global south, which reinforce socio-spatial fragmentation, and converting the physical environment becomes a source of “material and symbolic violence” (Pedrazzini et al, 2014:394) in urban space. Urban violence is therefore seen as an intrinsic part of an urbanisation process that generates certain forms of social and spatial fragmentation. Taking the example of Addis Ababa, the authors analyse the impact of rapid and large transformation of the city, where important and symbolic areas of the city have been „remodelled‟, „in order to achieve urban modernisation‟ (Pedrazzini et al, 2014).

The implementation of large infrastructure projects, i.e. transport, shopping malls etc; the demolition of neighbourhoods in order to develop mass project housing; and the destruction of historic landmarks – all represent the „violence of urbanisation‟ (Pedrazzini et al, 2014). Although the authors refer to the case study of Addis Ababa, these processes are witnessed throughout the global south, particularly in Latin America; this implies that social and spatial inequalities disrupts a citizen‟s daily routines, destroys social cohesion by separating communities, and limits residents‟ circulation through cities. The physical separation that these types of project represent therefore reinforces the sense of exclusion, but more importantly, leads urban violence to transform the relationships among urban residents: it changes the way that they relate to their environment, how urban space is configured and lived, and how citizens interact with each other (Pansters and Castillo-Berthier, 2007).

Accepting the premise that urban space is socially produced and that urban space structures social conduct (Lefebvre 1991), has implications that echo behavioural explanations of violence (Colombijn, 2016). As people constitute urban space, urban space shapes behaviour, to a certain degree (Colombijn, 2016). One thing to note about this interaction – between urban space and urban violence – is that “the strength and prevailing direction of the mutual impact between space and behaviour depends on the severity of violence, real or imagined” (Colombijn, 2016:16). This stresses the importance of perceptions of violence and insecurity. So, what is critical about the relationship between urban space and urban violence is that just as spatial inequalities generate violence, certain types of violence reinforce urban spatial inequalities and fragmentation (Hita and Sanchez, 2013).

It has been argued that the acceptance of neoliberalism as an economic policy was aimed at facilitating economic globalisation. This had repercussions that were most noticeable in cities, altering urban space to accommodate private interests (Davis, 2014). In this sense, the production of urban space along with urban planning processes become pivotal in mediating the territorial organisation of cities and neoliberalism. For this reason, it is important to analyse the „planning tradition‟ or the models of urban development which may be planning for the urban territory in ways that mean that spatial inequalities are further engrained, provoking violence.

Since in planning terms, physically determined policy responses to violence have been quite prevalent, the next section explores the theories behind responses to violence based on the physical space

2.3 Physical spatial responses to violence

The diversity of violence theories and impacts has been discussed so far; the causes of violence are multiple and complex to disentangle. For this reason, a comprehensive understanding of violence is key and since urban violence has social, economic, spatial and institutional roots, a successful approach to reduce urban violence should similarly include a variety of dimensions (Davis, 2012). Policy responses to violence can be categorised into very broad classifications. Institutional responses such as criminal justice enforcement and public health

52 approaches may be found at a national level (Moser and McIlwaine, 2004; UN- Habitat, 2007). At the local – city – level, these include effective urban planning and governance. Social-oriented responses to violence may be community-based approaches such as the reduction of risk factors and the strengthening of social capital. Economic responses to violence examine the micro- and macro-economic conditions that lead people to engage in violent behaviours and crime. Ideally, this approach may encompass initiatives seeking to tackle structural unemployment and underemployment, for example through: education, job- creation, economic diversification, and activities to develop skills in young people (Davis, 2012). As seen, this research stresses the need for a reconceptualisation of urban space – based on citizens‟ perceptions of violence – in order to design adequate integral responses to violence that are focused on strengthening and improving planning processes. However, the limitations of this approach must be considered: violence cannot be reduced or prevented with a single approach, i.e. planning alone cannot respond to all the manifestations of urban violence. Rather, an integral approach must be designed; in other words, the research does not refer to tackling planning process deficiencies and situational characteristics alone to respond to violence; it highlights the importance of re-conceptualising urban space as a starting point for these approaches. While there are some limitations to situational approaches and theories linking the characteristics of the built environment to the incidence of crime, these also hold potential to prevent or reduce incidents of urban violence, crime, and insecurity. This section discusses briefly the following approaches: defensible space, broken windows and situational crime theory or CPTED. The theories discussed here, particularly CPTED and broken windows, have often been used as a basis for designing interventions to respond to violence. These situation based interventions are widely used and have been implemented through the world, with most of the examples set in the UK (Armitage, 2014) and Australia (Queensland Government, 2007). While these initiatives are drafted under the assumption that they are effective towards crime prevention and violence reduction –two examples in this thesis are Rehabilitacion de Espacios Publicos in Colonia 5 de Febrero, Culiacan and Convive Feliz in Los Pericos, Aguascalientes (both 53 projects are discussed in chapters 4, 6 and 7) – coining concepts and the implementation overall tends to be replicated with a limited consideration of context, and in doing so, limiting their success on the ground.

One of the main issues of implementing generic responses to violence is that these risk disregarding how varied types of violence and insecurity are experienced at the local level, and more importantly, community, street and individual levels and what the implications for future violence reduction policies are. These theories are somewhat environmentally deterministic, in the sense that they place a lot of importance on the effects of the built environment on crime and violence. This discussion and critique will be developed and returned to at different points throughout the thesis; CPTED, broken windows, and Jacobs‟ “eyes on the street” are discussed in chapter 8 and 9, after the four case study communities are presented and the complex nature of each neighbourhood is illustrated.

Defensible space As early as 1961, the idea of the built environment working to deter crime was introduced (Tijerino, 1998). Examples of these are Jane Jacobs‟s (1961) „eyes on the streets‟ and Newman‟s (1973) „defensible space‟ concepts; some argue that Newman‟s work “operationalised” Jacobs‟s theories (Cozens et al, 2015). In „The Death and Life of Great American Cities‟, Jane Jacobs (1961:35) suggested that there are three qualities a „city street‟ must have to “make a safety asset, in itself, out of the presence of strangers”. These qualities are 1) a clear demarcation between private and public space, 2) “eyes on the streets”, and 3) people on the sidewalks (Jacobs, 1961:35). These premises echo some of the principles later synthesised by the CPTED theory (Cozens et al, 2015), particularly as Jacobs‟ „eyes on the street‟ has been equated to CPTED‟s natural surveillance (Cozens and Davies, 2013). „Eyes on the street‟ assumes that if offenders realise they are being observed, they are less likely to commit offences (Cozens and Davies, 2013; Jacobs, 1961).

Oscar Newman, (1973) explored the relation between architecture and people‟s behaviour in his theory of „defensible space‟, where defensible space is defined as “a residential environment whose physical characteristics – building

54 layout and site plan – function to allow inhabitants themselves to become key agents in ensuring their security” (Newman, 1973:50, cited in Cozens et al, 2015). Newman‟s aim was to create a model for residential environments that would inhibit crime. This would be achieved by creating „the physical expression‟ of a „social fabric‟ that defends itself (Agbola, 1997). In other words, his proposal was to solve people‟s journeys to and from their living areas, eliminating the fear of and occurrence of crime. His first preoccupation was to study the physical characteristics of housing projects, to determine which of these might present an opening for criminal activity. Although he asserts otherwise, his theory of „defensible space‟ was mainly limited to residential areas (Newman, 1973) and was highly contested, as “the principle that fear can be „designed out‟ of built environments” (Pain, 2000): 370) was seen as simplistic.

‘Broken windows’ and ‘situational crime’ theories The other main theoretical response models in which violence and crime are associated with urban space are the „broken windows‟ theory (Wilson and Kelling, 1982) and the „situational theory of crime‟, also known as „crime prevention through environment design (CPTED) theory‟ (Jeffery, 1971). For the broken windows theory, Wilson and Kelling (1982) argue that the problems of crime and anti-social behaviour in the streets and public spaces essentially occur when both the government and the police accept and ignore urban disorder. They use „broken windows‟ as a metaphor, where it is suggested that a deterioration process begins when neglecting a broken window of a building causes more windows to be broken without responsibility for the consequences. Hence, deterioration attracts more vandalism, and soon the building and then the whole neighbourhood will collapse under this abandonment.

After several experiments, for example Rudolph Giuliani‟s mayoralty in New York, where the broken window theory was complemented by a „zero tolerance‟ policy, the conclusion was that crime is higher in areas where neglect, dirt, disorder and abuse are prevalent (Arroyo, 2003). This also suggests that non- repairing of the broken window and absence of consequences for the responsible party, consequently causes urban anomie, as discussed above. Thus, the idea of anomie is intimately associated with the theory of crime prevention through the proper design of spaces. 55

The CPTED theory proposes that a properly-designed environment decreases opportunities for crime and reduces perceived fear, increasing cohesion in the community (Kitchen and Schneider, 2007). This theory is based on a model developed by Ray Jeffery in 1971. The model seeks to reduce the opportunities to commit crime through a series of strategies. Some of the principles on which it is based are: 1) natural surveillance or spatial visibility; 2) territorial reinforcement, or the relationship between citizens and their environment which creates a sense of belonging; 3) natural access control, when the community appropriates accesses to common spaces, either by use or signalling; 4) maintenance of public spaces, related to the theory of broken windows; and lastly, 5) community participation, the community‟s involvement in all steps of the CPTED stage methodology, implying not only reducing opportunity for crime but also lowering the perception of insecurity.

This approach emphasises the spatial setting of crime and links crime prevention and reduction to municipal-level interventions to improve a community‟s physical infrastructure (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007; UN-Habitat, 2007; Moser and McIlwaine, 2004). More specifically, it focuses on a number of important aspects such as street layout, building and site design, zoning and land- use, transportation system planning and infrastructure improvements, as well as lighting for streets and public spaces. Urban upgrading to reduce violence (or violence prevention through urban upgrading) is based on a set of principles used as guidelines in the upgrading or development process, which are in line with those of CPTED. These include surveillance and visibility, territoriality, natural access control and community participation (Bauer, 2010; Schneider and Kitchen, 2007). This approach aims at reducing crime and increasing safety but, first and foremost, its purpose is to upgrade neighbourhoods, improve living and social standards, and empower local residents; it has mainly been implemented in slum or squatter settlements. Urban upgrading has a strong focus on integrated urban design and planning and the resulting impact on the safety and living conditions of communities (Bauer, 2010). However, violence prevention through urban upgrading has been proven to work best as one of several critical components of a more comprehensive strategy to reduce and prevent violence in urban areas (World Bank, 2011a). This

56 approach has been successfully implemented in the cities of Cape Town and Bogotá (Bauer, 2010).

Since violence affects most social groups, some authors argue that it is necessary to include in the planning process specific features to address the issue of violence for each group (Castillo-Berthier, 2004;Sweet and Escalante, 2010). For example, Sweet and Escalante (2010) argue that for gender violence, planning should incorporate women‟s security into the design of cities, parks, in recreation planning, and in both public transport systems and health care facilities. Extending these guidelines beyond private areas, as suggested by the authors, similarly has the potential to reduce other types of violence, such as economic or social.

Castillo-Berthier (2004), discussing gangs and youth violence argues that the environment where young people develop in Latin America – among other factors – may enhance violent behaviour. These environments present characteristics that are considered highly dangerous and can easily encourage gang-membership among young people. Some other general factors that may have an influence are: a high number of poor families in precarious conditions, lack of long-term national development projects, the absence of strategic future planning, the lack of spaces for socialisation and recreation for young people, a lack of appropriate jobs for youths, the loss of credibility in state institutions, and the penetration of youth groups by organised crime.

While some of the factors blamed for causing violence can be addressed through effective urban development planning, it is rare that any single approach to violence succeeds. The approaches discussed above are generally employed to address situational or opportunity crime. Ideally the combination of approaches would lead to a decrease in the incidence of violence and enforce urban security through both effective urban planning and governance.

However, the development of community-based approaches, the reduction of risk factors, and the strengthening of social capital through initiatives that seek to include and develop communities‟ abilities to respond to crime and violence must also be included (UN-Habitat, 2007). Within bottom-up approaches to violence reduction, communities play a crucial part, constrasting with top-down,

57 physical planning-oriented approaches mention above. Since the impact of violence is most intense at the local level, community participation can help identify issues related to violence and crime. This requires involvement of community members and organisations improving social cohesion and collective efficacy, as well as rejecting cultures of violence that can become entrenched in communities (World Bank, 2011a; Morenoff et al, 2001).

2.4 Towards a conceptual framework for urban violence

As discussed in this chapter, violence transforms the physical landscape as well as the economic and social relations of urban communities (World Bank, 2011a). Undeniably, the built environment has important links with urban violence, and this relationship is more complex than frequently assumed. It is now recognised that inadequate basic infrastructure provision, lack of or deficient public spaces, narrow alleyways, and the absence of street lighting are factors that generate the conditions and opportunities for the certain types of violence and, consequently, urban insecurity (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007). Also, limited access to infrastructure and services exacerbates a sense of social exclusion and inequalities; it can create vulnerabilities and feelings of being neglected, or what here has been referred to as „infrastructural violence‟ (Rodgers and O‟Neill, 2012). Peripheral, marginal, and historically-ignored urban areas are often under- governed and excluded from the political and social processes that shape the city (Bayón and Saraví, 2013). As shown by Gold (1970) more than four decades ago, while the causes of violence may be multi-dimensional, particular importance may be attributed to the influence of the physical environment over violent behaviour and violent crime. Based on physical separation and feelings of insecurity, fears of crime and violence have generated new patterns of development in cities (Rodgers, 2010).

The relationships between different patterns of city growth and expansion, economic conditions, and the manifestations of violence in urban areas must be further studied to determine how they influence each other, and the implications this has on citizens‟ perceptions of urban space and violence and insecurity. This leads to a series of questions regarding the relationship between urban space and violence that need to be addressed: Firstly, how is urban violence reflected in

58 urban space? Secondly, how are urban space and its uses modified by urban violence? In answering these questions, this research also seeks to further understand the relationship between urban violence and development planning. More generally, it aims to scrutinise the relations, processes and factors by which “[c]ertain spaces are construed as spaces of safety or danger, of devastation or preservation” (Mendieta, 2006:9 in Boano, 2011). Based on the literature review so far, it is possible to advance the following argument: citizens‟ perceptions of urban violence and insecurity affect the urban space, and this has implications for the way people conceive and live in cities, which in turn has potential implications for urban planning. The literature suggests that the appearance of violence is influenced by several causes, which are varied and cannot be fully understood or informed by a single discipline (WHO, 2016). In this sense, understandings of violence in this thesis are underpinned by the ecological framework which looks at it in a multi-dimensional way, and allows the analysis of risk factors interacting at different levels, highlighting the effects and interactions between violence and urban processes. This allows moving beyond an analysis of the causes of violence and focusing on the impact violence has on citizens‟ perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, and how this affects their conception and uses of urban space.

Figure 2.1 Socio-environmental risk factors for the emergence of violence

Society

Economic inequalities Urban and poverty anomie

Rapid urban sprawl and High crime social change Community/individual and violence Disorganised levels urban development Cultural Child abuse+ Alcohol drug Privatisation Youth norms that psychologica abuse and of urban space unemploy- support or l disorders violent Transnational ment tolerate and poor Large behaviour and national infrastructure violence parenting drug trade projects

Source: adapted from WHO, (2016)

Figure 2.1 syntheses examples of risk factors discussed previously at different levels of analysis, in line with the ecological framework. This framework allows an exploration of violence in a way that pays more attention to urban and contextual – societal and community – factors. Although recognising the importance of all risk factors interacting at different levels, the research will focus on exploring the urban level risk factors, in order to analyse the potential of urban planning processes both as a cause and as a response to urban violence and insecurity in the context of Mexico.

The argument of the thesis is, thus, based on three concepts: perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, urban space, and planning processes (see figure 2.2). More specifically, my research looks at the interactions between these three concepts, namely, how the perceptions of violence and insecurity affect urban space, how urban space affects or not urban violence and insecurity; and what role does planning play in this interaction.

In summary, this literature review chapter has situated the research within wider debates which analyse the underlying 'themes' that allowed sketching the

60 following tentative conceptual framework (see figure 2.2) as a possible guide to explore the Mexican case studies. This initial framework is revised in the light of the findings of the empirical chapters, in chapter 9.

Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework

Source: author, 2015

This chapter reviewed and analysed violence theories. The ecological framework was presented as a conceptual approach to studying violence. Some of the social environmental risk factors in the Mexican context, and urban space, as well as how urban development planning is implemented, and what are the main socio-spatial responses to violence are examined in chapter 4. This permits a critical look at urban planning processes in Mexico, including how neoliberal planning and „the violence of urbanisation‟ affect cities. Accordingly, chapter 5 analyses the context within four case-study communities, looking into issues which might influence planning, such as socio-spatial segregation and peripheralisation. In this context, in chapters 6 and 7, urban violence and insecurity in Mexico and its relation to urban space are explored at a micro-level from citizens‟ perspectives.

2.5 Conclusion

Scholars have recently made the case for a spatial analysis of violence, one which looks beyond the limited scope of „spatial patterns‟ to predict crime and violence (Springer and Le Billon, 2016). In order to contribute to the discussions on a „spatialised view of violence‟, this chapter has critically examined how different approaches have looked into the relation between urban space and urban violence. As the literature suggests a need for holistic, multi- faceted and multi-dimensional views of violence and its characteristics, the chapter analysed different meanings, theories, and conceptual debates around violence, insecurity, and urban space.

The study of violence manifestations suggests the need to adapt the ecological framework as a means of looking into urban violence and insecurity in a multi-faceted way which emphasises socio-environmental and situational factors. This is in line with the main research objectives and questions of this thesis. The literature review highlighted firstly, the significance of perceptions of violence and insecurity; secondly, the analysis of urban space processes as potential causes of violence; and lastly, the effects that neoliberal policies have on cities, namely, through the privatisation of space, the deepening of urban segregation, and marginalisation. The concept of „the violence of urbanisation‟ conceptualises the ways in which urban planning processes might be generating certain manifestations of violence. Similarly, by looking at urban space and planning as a potential response to violence, theories of violence and crime prevention through environmental design (Jacobs‟ „eyes on the streets‟, and CPTED, among others) were analysed. It is possible to assert that while spatial responses to violence have potential, there are certain assumptions leading to issues that might arise if these theories are implemented in a „recipe‟ mode as socio-spatial responses to violence. This will be discussed further in chapters 4 through 7.

The review of the literature therefore has allowed highlighting three critical issues which have not been sufficiently addressed by previous studies on violence or that need further research. The first relates to citizens‟ perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, and how these relate to the urban space. Secondly,

62 the implications that these perceptions have in the way urban space is conceptualised and used are considered, and lastly, the potential implications that these represent for urban planning are examined. This suggests further analysing urban space beyond the built environment, since social relations and mental construction of space are key in understanding citizens‟ perceptions of violence and the impact this has on urban space. In this sense, a grounded understanding of violence and people‟s perceptions of violence and insecurity in relation to urban space needs to be further studied.

Research aim and questions Thus, the aim of the research is to explore citizens‟ perceptions of urban violence and insecurity in Mexico, analysing its relation with urban space and the role of planning processes in this interaction. The research seeks to analyse, firstly, different manifestations of violence and their interactions; secondly, the spatial distribution of violence, the characteristics of its concentration in certain urban spaces and its effects in communities; and, lastly, the planning systems in Mexican cities, and their relationship with violence. Correspondingly and with these issues in mind, the following research questions are formulated:

1. What are the different manifestations of urban violence and insecurity in Mexico?

2. How do manifestations of urban violence and insecurity relate to urban space?

3. How does violence and insecurity affect citizens‟ perceptions, understanding and use of urban space?

4. How do urban planning systems interact with and affect the relationship between urban violence and urban space?

These questions were formulated and pursued based on a critical realism logic of inquiry in line with the theoretical framework presented here. The following chapter presents the methodology, which discusses in more detail the ontology and epistemology that helped to shape and justify the formulation of the research questions as well as methods used, and the overall process of how the research developed.

CHAPTER 3 Methodology: understanding violence, space and planning in Mexican cities

Numbers are the first resource for communicating the experience of excessive social violence. Without them, one cannot believe the daily accounts of horror, but they quickly become hollow with repetition, like a worn-out song. In the face of impotent statistics, the testimonial steps forward as witness. When objective facts fail to tell the whole story, we resort to the most primitive and primal way of knowing, the subjective, the personal: this is what happened to me, this is how I survived. (Rotker, 2002:8) Introduction

Studying urban violence and, moreover, the impacts of violence is a complex issue, as purely quantitative methods do not grasp the extent to which violence impacts the lives of citizens (Rotker, 2002). Traditionally, violence has been studied through quantitative methods to assess its economic impacts or to try and generally quantify it (Fajnzylber et al, 2000; Robles et al, 2013). One of the main drawbacks of a solely quantitative approach is that these methods fail to capture people‟s everyday experiences of urban violence and insecurity (Moser, 2004), which are critical for designing appropriate responses and intervention. The main focus of this research is examining different manifestations of urban violence and insecurity through citizens‟ perceptions; how these impact urban space, and how planning processes interact with this relationship. To do so, this chapter outlines the methods used to conduct the inquiry, analyse its results, and answer the main research questions.

The chapter is divided into five sections. Section one presents the methodological approach, ontology and epistemology, which helped to shape the formulation of the research questions guiding the investigation. Additionally, the qualitative-quantitative approach to data collection methods is addressed. It also explains why a case-study research design and a mixed-methods approach were used to compare two cities and four communities in Mexico. The selection of case studies, at city and community levels is explained in section two. Section three describes in detail the methods of data collection used during fieldwork. The process of data analysis is presented in section four. The final section reflects on

64 ethical challenges and the positionality of the researcher as well as emotions, and lastly, gives some concluding comments on the research process.

3.1 Theoretical approach and research questions

Ontology and epistemology Discussing the theories of knowledge and reality to which the research subscribes helps to support the reasoning behind the methods of data gathering, analysis and interpretation (Brymann, 2010). Traditionally, two opposing ontological approaches have influenced social science research: positivism and interpretivism. While positivism advocates that the way to produce knowledge is through the application of scientific methods to the natural world – i.e. to describe the measurable and observable phenomena that we experience (Bryman, 2012; Trochim, 2006) – interpretivism sustains that the object and approach of study of social sciences should be different from that of the natural world (Bryman, 2012).

Critiques of the positivist approach provoked the appearance of the critical realism ontology which sustains that the relation between the real world and the concepts we form to understand should be the focus of the research process. For Danermark (2002), critical realism provides an answer to the dichotomy of “realism versus anti-realism”, where the chief question is whether a world exists independently of human consciousness. The answer critical realism offers is that there exists both an external world independently of human consciousness, and at the same time a dimension which includes our socially-determined knowledge about reality (Danermark, 2002). Thus, reality has an objective existence but “our knowledge of it is conceptually mediated: facts are theory-dependent but they are not theory-determined" (Danermark 2002: 26, emphasis added).

Critical realism also recognises that the categories employed to understand reality are likely to be temporary (Bryman, 2012). This is in line with this research approach that understands planning as a constant dynamic process. This ontology accentuates the centrality of context and mechanisms, similar to the approach taken in this research: the possible interaction between urban violence and urban space studied through planning processes in two Mexican cities, and through citizens‟ perceptions. This logic is supported by the idea that socio-

65 economic structures – including planning systems – generate processes and events which are not always evident and at the same time trigger other evident processes and phenomena (Danermark, 2002). For this research, urban spaces and planning structures may be triggering or enhancing certain forms of violence and insecurity, which are not always evident. Critical realism allows a balance between theory and empirical reality, and a focus on perceptions of violence and insecurity through a multi-dimensional approach.

The logic of inquiry that supports critical realism is called retroduction. Within critical realism all explanations are open to be reviewed, and accepted theories can be rejected in order to achieve more convincing alternatives which might offer better explanations of a phenomenon (McEvoy and Richards, 2006; Danermark, 2002; Olsen, 2004; Perlesz and Lindsay, 2003). In this research, a retroductive logic of inquiry allows exploring, firstly, manifestations of violence and insecurity, and looking at these in relation to urban space; secondly, analysing the production of urban space by planning processes and structures and their relation with urban violence – i.e. if urban space (through planning processes) enhances, provokes or responds to violence and insecurity. Similarly, retroduction allows the inclusion of concepts that emerged during the data collection, to get a more nuanced snapshot of the „reality‟ of violence and insecurity in the peripheral communities; for example, the violence chains concept (see chapters 6 to 8). This means that explanations of observations and lived experiences of violence advance the understanding of the underlying planning processes and mechanisms that account for the phenomena of urban violence and insecurity.

Exponents of critical realism are wary of interpretivists being too concerned with micro-levels of analysis. Their critique is based on the assumption that interpretivists fail to grasp the underlying social structures, which condition the actions of both individuals and social networks where social actors are embedded (Granovetter, 1985). For this reason, critical realists conceive the world as a „multi-dimensional open system‟ (Bhaskar, 1978). For this study on violence and based on the ecological framework proposed in chapter 2, bridging the dichotomy of micro/macro-levels is crucial, since risk factors interact at multiple levels to account for the appearance of violence and insecurity. Thus, at a micro- level, the research aims to understand the perceptions of violence and insecurity,

66 and at the macro-level, the structures that might be generating them. This is undertaken by using a mixed-method approach, which opens the debate about the „qualitative-quantitative divide‟ addressed in the following section. A mixed- method approach was useful given the research focus on context and violence manifestations, insecurity and urban space, which was informed by debates on violence research.

In order to respond to the research questions introduced in chapter 2 (see page 62), below is discussed how each question will be responded, as well as the tools and methods which will be implemented.

Regarding the research question #1, this will require analysing the different manifestations and perceptions of urban violence and insecurity in two cities and four communities, in order to compare within and between cities. For question #2, this involves exploring the relationship between urban violence and urban space, with a focus on theories which link the built environment with urban violence. Question #3 entails exploring citizens‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity, and using qualitative and participatory methods of data collection to understand how urban violence affects urban space and vice versa. Lastly, question #4 requires understanding the planning policies, mechanisms, actors, frameworks and structures that regulate the patterns of urban development in Mexico cities and how they respond to, or enhance, urban violence and insecurity, as well as comparing community level implications of planning processes with a peripheral/central logic, and at city level.

The first three questions have guided the research, and are addressed through the community case studies in Culiacan and Aguascalientes respectively, in chapters 6 and 7, and are also discussed in the analytical chapter 8 and concluding chapter 9. Question four is explored in chapters 4 and 5, which analyses how the process of planning happens in Mexico at national, state and city level and what the socio-spatial policies responding to violence issues are.

Qualitative and quantitative methods Studies on violence tend to use quantitative methods, particularly to assess its economic impacts (eg,World Bank, 2009, WHO, 2004. and Yodanis et al., 2000) or to quantify it (in particular using homicide rates, which is explored

67 further below) (Portes and Roberts, 2005). One of the most prevalent sources of data on violence, and one of the main methods of data collection for the social sciences more generally, is social surveys (Bryman, 2003). While essential, this method presents some issues because people‟s perceptions can hardly be objective while collecting data on any social phenomena (Blaikie, 2000). Quantitative approaches tend to generalise and, in doing so, disregard two key issues: firstly, people‟s perceptions of violence and insecurity and the implications for their daily lives, and secondly, crime underreporting (Moser, 2004). To overcome this limitation this research focuses on citizens‟ perceptions of violence and urban space, and therefore quantitative approaches are complemented by qualitative and participatory methodologies.

Although the scale and extent of violence affects large sections of the population in Latin America (Latinobarometro, 2010), it is difficult to measure it. Generally, research on violence in the region (e.g. Imbusch et al, 2011; Moser, 2004; Davis, 2012) refers to a particular category of violence and is measured by trends in homicide rates. Homicide rates are largely used because they capture the official data on homicides, since all murders are usually registered, contrasting with unreported crime, also known as „black data‟ or „cifras negras‟ in Latin America (ENVIPE, 2013). However, the use of homicide as an indicator to measure levels of violence is limited as it represents only fatal crimes. Since non- fatal crimes are often under-reported, the extent and scale of various other forms of violence, especially robbery, mugging, and domestic violence, are not reflected.

High levels of unreported crime are often associated with the lack of trust citizens have towards state authorities and police institutions (Davis, 2012). In Mexico in recent years, violence measurements are generally linked to homicides which are allegedly narco-violence related. This simplification of violence as drug-related has important implications for the design and implementation of violence reduction and prevention strategies (see chapter 4). Policy design and interventions should be informed by an in-depth understanding of motives, origins and possible linkages of violence, and analysis of circumstances and context (Davis, 2012).

Incorporating citizens‟ perceptions to understand violence and insecurity and its effect in urban space therefore becomes critical in the design of adequate responses. The significance of citizens‟ perceptions of violence has been highlighted by Moser (2004). Relevant policy research on violence is usually dominated by quantitative methods which offer an objective and measurable indicator on violence; however, they fail to grasp the impacts citizens experience on their daily lives, as well as their perceptions of violence and insecurity (Moser and McIlwaine, 2006). Macro-levels of analysis tend to neglect impacts of violence at community level, although perceptions of violence and insecurity provide helpful insights at micro-level. Perceptions of violence affect individual and community well-being (Moser, 2004), even if these are not born out of statistical evidence or official data.

The need for a mixed-method approach is present in analysing many social world phenomena (Mason, 2006). To critical realists this is known as critical methodological pluralism which argues that the connections between theories of knowledge and nature, and research methods, are more fluid than often assumed and the relations are largely characterised by dynamism (Bryman, 2012). In other words, a particular method need not be married to a particular methodological or theoretical approach. Similarly, the need for triangulation requires using mixed-methods to better understand reality (Perlesz and Lindsay 2003). This is especially important as violence has a great impact on a citizen‟s well-being, and a negative impact on social cohesion, yet this impact is difficult to measure only by quantitative methods (Moser and McIlwaine, 2014; Moser, 2004).

The research uses surveys, and complements them with qualitative methods, such as semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and participatory tools. An advantage of this approach is what Brannen (2005) calls „the transcendence of paradigms‟ which implies that qualitative and quantitative methods attempt to understand phenomena occurring at micro- and macro-levels. While some stress the importance of studying „subjective interpretations and perspectives‟ (micro-level, qualitative methods), others will be concerned with “larger scale patterns and trends and seek to pose structural explanations” as quantitative methods do (Brannen, 2005:8). Nonetheless, the conciliation of this

69 challenge might be solved with the application of a mixed-method approach going beyond the dichotomy between micro- and macro-levels (Brannen, 2005).

In this study, quantitative data – both primary, which was collected by the researcher, and secondary, collected from existing surveys and official statistics – are used to examine the impacts of violence in urban space and how these vary geographically within the case studies. A key strength of quantitative methods is that they may offer a reliable description and the possibility of accurately comparing cases or units of analysis (McEvoy and Richards, 2006). Conversely, qualitative approaches are useful in identifying how people perceive, live and cope with the complexity of violence in their communities and daily lives (Moser, 2012). The major strength of qualitative methods, from a critical realist perspective, is that they are quite flexible (Brymann, 2012). This flexibility allowed for violence and insecurity issues to arise from the beginning of semi- structured interviews, if brought up by respondents.

Qualitative methods can also help to discern complex concepts and relationships “that are unlikely to be captured by predetermined response categories or standardised quantitative measures” (McEvoy and Richards, 2006:71). For example, the violence chains concept (Moser and Horn, 2011) arose during interviews with peripheral communities, where their perception was that many manifestations of violence exist in the area and that these are linked (see chapters 6 and 7). Moreover, qualitative approaches offer the possibility of capturing people‟s perceptions of violence and how these impact urban space. This involves exploring as much as possible the situational environments and contexts of social processes, power relations and, in this study, urban space in order to „mak[e] strategic and theoretically driven comparisons with similar processes in other contexts, to generate explanations‟ (Mason, 2006:16).

As will be elaborated later in this chapter, the lack of, and the deficiencies in reliable quantitative data at national, city and street levels, prompted me to gather my own quantitative data, which was later complemented with qualitative data. These included transect walks on arrival at the communities, followed by interviews with communities and planning officials, and then in-depth

70 participatory methods – e.g. mapping and auto-photography with communities. This research „trajectory‟ will be expanded upon in the following sections.

Using complementary methods may lead to more valid results, and employing several measures and processes of analysis has the potential to expose different outcomes that otherwise could have been neglected (Risjord et al, 2001 in McEvoy and Richards, 2006). Another advantage of a mixed-methods approach is that it may capture a more nuanced and contextual representation of the community under study. Olsen (2004) sustains that the methods employed must be regarded as complementary, rather than inevitably committed to particular philosophical approaches. Combining quantitative and qualitative methods might help researchers to counteract the bias associated with conducting single-method studies (Denzin, 1970).

In sum, in this research, mixed-methods enable the weaving of these „broader patterns‟ of urban violence. Firstly, quantitative analysis is achieved through surveys at neighbourhood level which are geographically referenced. Secondly, the analysis of underlying factors (planning processes and overall risk factors according to the ecological framework discussed in chapter 2) are achieved through qualitative and particularly participatory methods that are better able to illuminate these causal mechanisms (Thaler, 2012). In this study, mixed- methods are implemented under a case-study framework (Yin, 2009), which allows understanding of the broader conditions surrounding case-study communities at different levels (national, municipal and household). This in turn permits an analysis of urban violence to be conducted with multiple perspectives that takes into account the voice and views of various social and political actors (Moser, 2012). The selection of city and community case studies is explained in detail in the next section.

3.2 Case-study approach and research design

In order to answer the research questions outlined above, a case-study approach was selected. A case-study research design implied emphasis upon an examination of context which provides the opportunity to achieve a more nuanced understanding of the causes of a social phenomenon within a particular setting,

71 whilst also providing insight into the background of related problems (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gerring, 2007; Yin, 2011, 2009). A case-study framework in this research aimed to explore the different manifestations of violence in four communities in two cities in Mexico; the effects of these manifestations of violence on urban space; and the role of planning in this interaction.

The case-study approach for this thesis was influenced by the research design of Moser (2012) in which comparative analysis was conducted across several cities, using participatory violence appraisals (PVA). Some tools like participatory mapping employed by Moser (2012) were used during fieldwork. Participatory mapping was complemented with auto-photography (see Lombard, 2013).. In the context of Mexico, this approach allows a comparison of people‟s perceptions of violence and insecurity within and across cities. This permits an in- depth analysis of the urban structure and the built environment surrounding each selected city and neighbourhood; and allows a comparison of how the structure, ideology and legislation of the Mexican planning system is interpreted and implemented at the state, municipal and community level.

City and community case studies selection This research explores four different communities in two cities of Mexico. The two cities are Culiacan in the state of Sinaloa and Aguascalientes in the state of Aguascalientes. The logic behind the selection of the two cities is that Culiacan and Aguascalientes are similar in terms of population and economic growth and they are representative of the centre and northwest regions of Mexico. Yet their levels of violence, measured by homicide rates, have significant variations. While Sinaloa registered 58 homicides in June 2013, Aguascalientes registered 11 in the same month and year (Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, 2013). Considering that the extent and scale of violence across the country varies significantly it is essential to understand the significance of the two cases in this context. While Sinaloa is often considered a dangerous state, in reality, states such as Michoacan and Estado de Mexico had considerably higher homicide rates in June 2013, with 154 and 128 respectively (SEGOB and SESNSP, 2013).

Sinaloa therefore represents a state with apparently high levels of violence, which nonetheless was less violent than the most violent regions of the

72 country. It thus offered the opportunity to investigate urban violence and planning matters without exposing the researcher and the respondents to higher levels of risk, while offering a point of comparison with a much „safer‟ state such as Aguascalientes. This suggests that the „reality of violence‟ is more nuanced and complex than official understandings, and that there are significant differences between what is depicted „out there‟ and what is actually happening on the ground (see chapters 6, 7 and 8).

Within each city, two case-study communities were explored. The neighbourhoods are Colonia Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos in Aguascalientes, and Colonia Centro and 5 de Febrero in Culiacan. The selection of two cases rather than just one per city aims to provide an inner-city and peripheral comparative framework to analyse the impact of violence and crime in different types of neighbourhood in the city, and to explore the role of urban planning processes in each neighbourhood.

Critical realism‟s methodological pluralism suggests using mixed-methods to capture in depth citizen perceptions of violence and its impact on space through both quantitative and qualitative methods. Thus, the four case-study communities compare inhabitants‟ perceptions of different manifestations of violence and insecurity as well as its impact on two different urban space settings within and between cities. The comparison within and between cities (see chapter 8) permits a deeper examination of the role of planning in this interaction. It also helps to highlight the discrepancies in how the configuration and construction of urban space is conceptualised by „official‟ planning discourses and how communities‟ reality of urban space differs from these discourses.

The criteria considered for the selection of case-study neighbourhoods within each city included: 1) year of establishment of the neighbourhood in each city (historic neighbourhoods and recently established); 2) neighbourhood income level (low and middle-high income); 3) location (peripheral and central); 4) similarity in population size (3,000 to 5,000 inhabitants); and 5) marginalisation index, (see Table 3.1). The suitability of these neighbourhoods was further assessed in the field, with the advice of local partners and gatekeepers, based on considerations of ease of access, safety and proximity.

Table 3.1 Criteria for neighbourhoods’ selection.

Source: Author 2015

3.3 Methods of data collection

As discussed above, to answer the research questions, and considering the advantages a mixed-methods approach offers for the study of violence, quantitative methods in the form of surveys were complemented by qualitative methods such as participant observation and semi-structured interviews. The justification for the selection of methods linked to each research question is presented below, in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Research questions, methods and justification.

Linking research questions and methods Research Question Methods Justification

Surveys were conducted at local level to complement existing quantitative data, and to geographically locate problematic areas within each community. The 1. What are the different analysis of secondary data provided a baseline to Methods: Surveys, manifestations of urban quantitatively characterise the appearance of urban Secondary data analysis, violence and insecurity in violence and perceptions of insecurity; violence and semi-structured interviews Mexico? crime were quantified through existing data from victimisation surveys and local governments’ statistics of violence incidence at municipal level, where possible.

2. How do manifestations of Transect walks and participant observation allowed a urban violence relate to the first approximation to analysing qualitatively the urban space? context of the communities in order to later relate this Methods: transect walks, to participants' reported incidence of violence. Semi- participant observation, structured interviews allowed for a deeper analysis of semi-structured interviews, respondents' perceptions of insecurity, this was participatory mapping, 4. How does violence and complemented by participatory mapping and auto- auto-photography insecurity affect citizens’ photography, which allowed the researcher to perceptions, understanding and identify general community characteristics and work use of urban space? with peoples' perception of violence and insecurity.

Policy document analysis allowed to understand how Methods:Analysis of policy 3. How do urban planning institutions and actors understand urban planning, documents, regulations systems interact with and affect and how it is and implement. Semi-structured and laws regarding urban the relationship between urban interviews with planning officialsand local NGOs planning; semi-structured violence and urban space? provided an understanding of the structures of urban interviews. planning in Mexican institutions.

Source: Author, 2015

The fieldwork for this research was conducted in the four case-study communities, from mid December 2014 to end June 2015. Prior to the fieldwork, existing data was analysed to create an initial city profile and gather information on the four selected communities – background, demographics, economic and violence figures (see chapters 4 and 5). Fieldwork was conducted in Culiacan, Sinaloa, from January to April 2015, and in Aguascalientes from April to June 2015. The data collection in each city was conducted in three stages. The first stage consisted of contacting gatekeepers, community leaders, local counterparts and municipality staff involved in urban planning and citizen participation7 matters. At this stage after contacting the gatekeepers, the two city-level and four community profiles were enriched through transect walks in the communities (see

7 The concept of citizen participation was a part of the preliminary research proposal, but was excluded from the research once in the field in order to focus on planning processes and urban space.

75 section 4.4.2). The second stage of fieldwork was based on quantitative methods (explained in the following section). The third stage involved qualitative and participatory methods (elaborated in section 4.3.2). Table 3.3 summarises the results of each data collection method, by city and community.

Table 3.3 Results of data collected during fieldwork, by community and research method.

City Community Methods of data collection Auto- Elite Semi-structured Participatory photography Surveys interviews interviews mapping (individual per city photographers)

Los Pericos 35 15 7 4 14 Barrio de 30 7 5 2

Aguascalientes San Marcos 5 de 31 22 6 4 Febrero 13 Colonia Culiacan 41 9 7 3 Centro Total 137 53 25 13 27

Source: Author, 2015

Quantitative surveys In the context of Mexico, several sources present violence measurement data. For statistical purposes, crime rates are considered based on seven categories: 1) Life and physical integrity (homicide, assault); 2) Personal liberty (kidnapping, trafficking of children); 3) Freedom and sexual security (sexual abuse, rape); 4) Property (burglary, car theft, mugging); 5) Family (domestic violence); 6) Society (corruption of minors, drug dealing); and 7) Others (trespassing, extortions) (SEGOB and SESNSP, 2013). Data is collected at national and state levels by the Executive Secretary of the National Public Security System (SESNSP). However, official statistics tend to focus on homicide as a metric for violence, which tend to neglect other non-fatal manifestations of violence and insecurity. Survey data on perceptions is available from the National Survey on Victimisation and Perception of Public Safety or ENVIPE, which aims to capture public perceptions of safety. One of the main strengths of ENVIPE‟s surveys is that these estimate a black data, or „cifra negra‟ regarding unreported

76 crimes. In 2015, the estimate was 93.7 per cent, implying an increase on the 2014 estimation of 92.8 per cent; this suggests that over 93 per cent of crimes committed in the country were not reported (Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano 2015).

Responding to these limitations, important data have been generated by several NGOs in the country, which offer statistics beyond homicides. For example, the Citizens‟ Institute for Studies on Insecurity, ICESI, implements the National Survey on Insecurity at national and state level, excluding homicide, and considers „common crime‟ such as violent robbery, vehicle theft, kidnapping and burglary. Another NGO, Seguridad, Justicia y Paz [Safety, Security and Peace] produced information about violence in the municipalities of Mexico in 2016 (Seguridad, Justicia y Paz, 2016), as well as the Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano (2015) which gathers statistics such as homicides, kidnapping and violent robbery.

Gathered at national and state level, the analysis of this data provides a basis for understanding trends of violence, and allows comparison between case- study cities. Nevertheless, information at community and street level is scarce. Since this research explores the perceptions and impacts of violence and insecurity at community and household levels, gathering quantitative data at these micro-levels was essential. The lack of official data at this level is also highlighted as a critique of current violence reduction programmes (see chapters 4 and 5).

Overall, surveys provided an entry point during fieldwork and allowed exploration of the first research question on the incidence of violence at local level, including manifestations of violence and residents‟ perceptions of insecurity at street and household level. The aim was to fill the gap left by official data which is gathered at municipal and state levels; the objective of the surveys was twofold: firstly, to compare and complement data with existing secondary data that was used as the basis of the initial analysis of violence trends in the two cities. Secondly, surveys were conducted at individual and household level to overcome the limitations of existing data and gaps in information at the local, community and street levels.

Surveys also responded to some information issues relating to official data on violence at community level that arose during fieldwork. While in Aguascalientes, gathering this type of information was relatively easy, as it was provided by IMPLAN. This was not the case for Culiacan where requests for official data on violence incidence in each community by type of crime were denied on multiple occasions, with the response that these data were “confidential and not to be disclosed to the public” (personal communication with Secretaria de Seguridad Publica y Transito Municipal, 2015). Thus it was necessary to complement secondary data from other sorces with the surveys conducted as part of the research, in order to provide a more robust characterisation of the manifestations of violence (and crimes) affecting the two communities.

Surveys were conducted after contact was made with community members and continued over a period of four to five weeks in each community. The number of surveys, or the sample size did not attempt to be statistically representative. The aim was to collect geographically representative information in order to locate problematic areas within the communities. Due to time and resource limitations, the objective was to collect a minimum of 30 and a maximum of 50 surveys per community, up to a maximum of 200 surveys across the four communities (see annex 1 and annex 6).

A pilot questionnaire was conducted during the first week of fieldwork in Culiacan to assess the relevance of the questions, and then was modified accordingly e.g. if questions were not applicable, or if respondents were uncomfortable answering certain questions. In total, five research assistants aided fieldwork, one in the city of Aguascalientes (both in Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos) and four in Culiacan (one research assistant in 5 de Febrero, and three in Colonia Centro). Research assistants were students from the Faculty of Architecture in each city. A process of training was conducted with the research assistants, to ensure their security, to minimise the possibility of bias in completing the questionnaires, and to outline the significance of the research topic and methodology as well as other ethical issues.

Surveys were conducted in Culiacan during the afternoons, from 14:00 to 18:00 on weekdays, to suit research assistants‟ availability and also to capture the

78 maximum number of responses while adhering to safety protocol. During implementation, research assistants worked in pairs and stayed together, for security. In the peripheral neighbourhood in Culiacan, one research assistant always worked with the main researcher, also for security reasons. At the end of each working day, a debriefing was held to discuss issues, questions or difficulties that might have arisen from the surveys.

The structure of the surveys was divided into four sections (see annex 6). The first section covered general information about the household: age, sex, education, occupation, etc. The second section related to violence and crime, aiming to capture a sense of the respondent‟s perceptions of insecurity e.g. how secure/insecure do you feel. The third section included planning-related questions and assessment of public services provision e. The last section was about citizen participation, which was later thus excluded from the focus of the research

Qualitative It has been suggested that, in context of increased violence in Mexico and more generally in Latin America, it is essential to look beyond crime statistics (Villarreal, 2015). As discussed above, quantitative approaches alone often fail to grasp an integral view of violence, particularly at street and community levels. In this sense, qualitative methods complement and enhance understandings of violence by adding citizens‟ perceptions of insecurity and violence. Using a qualitative approach at the community level provided insights into how citizens perceive violence manifestations and insecurity, and how this affects their conception and uses of urban space. Additionally, participatory approaches at the community level offered insights into the experiences of violence among low- income and/or peripheral dwellers in a way that national level analyses cannot.

In order to understand trends in urban violence and insecurity, different metrics and perceptions must be triangulated with ethnographic evidence (Hammersley, 2002); thus, the next section elaborates on the use of qualitative methods in this research, particularly transect walks, semi-structured interviews with communities and officials, and participant observation.

Transect walks and participant observation A transect walk is a participatory tool that involves walking in order to show the location and distribution of key features along a given transect or path (Mahiri, 1998). This proved to be a useful tool to make first informal contact with community members and provided insights about the community in general (Mahiri, 1998). Transect walks were implemented at the beginning of the fieldwork, in each community. At this stage, the aim was to facilitate further engagement with community members – besides the community leader that accompanied the researcher – and start identifying community traits and issues, as perceived by different groups of the community (Mahiri, 1998).

This research method was valuable, as it permitted observation and analysis of the interactions community members have with the built environment; it was conducted at the beginning of fieldwork in all sites. No names and issues that could be associated with specific community members were recorded while in the field; all of the observations were recorded in the researcher‟s fieldwork journal, at the end of each day. Information obtained from this method was used to triangulate existing data about the neighbourhoods, and in a contextual manner, to consolidate community profiles.

Participant observation is defined as the primary method used by anthropologists doing fieldwork (De Munk and Sobo, 2008); and is often recognised as the process that enables researchers to learn about the activities of the individuals or communities under study in their natural setting (Kawulich, 2005). It also permits the researcher to observe and participate to some extent in those activities. It is a useful tool, where the researcher is immersed in "the process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day or routine activities of participants in the research setting" (Kawulich, 2005:91; Schensul, 1999).

In this research, participant observation focused broadly on communities‟ uses of space. This method allowed the witnessing of communities‟ activities and uses of space without being intrusive; it also provided insightful views of communities‟ understandings and uses of urban space, and why some places are

80 perceived as insecure. In this account, notes were made in fieldwork diaries, and some are included in chapters 6 and 7.

Semi-structured interviews with communities The flexible nature of semi-structured interviews has been widely recognised (Mason, 2002; Bryman, 2012). In this research, this method allowed easing into the topic with respondents on such sensitive research topics as urban violence and insecurity. Semi-structured interviews captured perceptions of daily and lived experiences of violence and insecurity in depth, relating them to specific areas of the neighbourhoods. They also captured inhabitants‟ perceptions of insecurity, which may originate both from direct and indirect experiences. Although the questions were open and general, for example, “What are the main issues in your community?” most of respondents‟ answers gravitated toward violence and insecurity issues.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three sets of „actors‟: community members (from all four community case studies), state and municipal planning officials, experts and NGOs and community based organisations, where existent. As the focus of the investigation is citizens‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity, the greatest number of semi-structured interviews was conducted within the case-study communities. A total of 53 interviews were conducted with community members from all case studies, lasting from 15 minutes to two hours, which added up to 60 hours of recording.

For semi-structured interviews, a fairly loose list of questions which varied according to the actor interviewed (see annex 5) was prepared by the researcher, with the flexibility to move from questions or themes depending on the interviewee‟s response, although always trying to use similar wordings and themes from one respondent to another. Emphasis was put on questions that would aid the understanding of how respondents frame, understand and live urban violence and insecurity.

In both peripheral neighbourhoods participants were eager to participate in the research. In the central communities, however, participants were harder to engage. This was ultimately reflected in the number of interviews conducted: in peripheral neighbourhoods, a total of 37 interviews were conducted whereas in

81 central neighbourhoods, only 16 were. The process of engaging respondents in the research was fairly similar: after an initial introduction had been made and community members were aware of the research and associated activities, qualitative methods were conducted, namely, semi-structured interviews (alongside simultaneous elite interviews with officials), participatory mapping and auto-photography.

The first set of semi-structured interviews was conducted in Culiacan, in the peripheral neighbourhood Colonia 5 de Febrero. In total, 22 semi-structured interviews were conducted in this community. This colonia was thought to be the most dangerous of the four case studies, since it is located at the periphery of the most „violent‟ city, Culiacan and due to its reputation in official terms (see chapter 6). For this reason, the colonia was accessed through a gatekeeper, the director of an NGO working in the sector. This allowed the researcher (and research assistant) to move through the „most insecure‟ community „protected‟, in the sense that the NGO was known in the area for being non-political and well- intentioned. This reputation, to some degree, thus extended to the researcher. The director introduced the researcher to the community leader of 5 de Febrero, and from then on the process moved forward. Through the community leader, a series of respondents were then engaged, and a „snowballing‟ effect occurred (Bryman, 2012).

Participants were enthusiastic to talk when approached and, more often than not, they would start mentioning problematic issues of the colonia – lack of or deficient services, poorly maintained infrastructure, etc – with violence and insecurity frequently mentioned. Participants would also suggest further people for the researcher to interview, often during the same day. The relaxed nature of semi-structured interview worked very well as an entry point for further participatory methods to be conducted. The largest number of semi-structured interviews was conducted in this community; respondents were very approachable and participative, which resulted in the process of research in 5 de Febrero being very positive and productive.

Fieldwork in Colonia Centro in Culiacan followed research in 5 de Febrero. The process of interviewing in Colonia Centro was very different from

82 the peripheral community. Only nine interviews were conducted in this neighbourhood; one of the main reasons for the low number of interviews was the low housing density of this research area. Additionally, participants seemed distrustful towards the researcher and sceptical of participating. Engaging inhabitants of Colonia Centro in semi-structured interviews was complicated; respondents preferred being surveyed, rather than interviewed. One of the reasons for this may relate to participants‟ stated distrust in the authorities (see sections 6.2 and 7.2), which might be interpreted as being reluctant to express their views over government actions. Overall, however, the process moved forward smoothly and the few interviews conducted in this area provided insightful views on violence and insecurity issues.

In Aguascalientes, conducting semi-structured interviews was slightly different from Culiacan8, as the researcher was not as familiar with the context. However, the process went efficiently with help of a research assistant who was acquainted with the city and the areas of investigation, Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos. Semi-structured interviews were conducted firstly in the peripheral neighbourhood Los Pericos: 15 semi-structured interviews were recorded with community members. In a similar fashion to Culiacan, accessing residents from the peripheral neighbourhood was easier than from the central one. There were few changes made to the question guides, and topics seemed to emerge in a similar way as in the peripheral community in Culiacan, which ultimately helped with the analysis of the data.

In the central neighbourhood of Barrio de San Marcos, seven interviews were conducted. Similar to Colonia Centro in Culiacan, Barrio de San Marcos has a low density of inhabitants, with zoning mostly used for educational and commerce purposes. This, and the fact that participants were not as easily engaged to participate as inhabitants from the periphery, are the main reasons for the difference in numbers of semi-structured interviews conducted, again similar to Culiacan. Generally, participants from Barrio de San Marcos seemed reluctant or hesitant to participate, with few exceptions. This directed the interview towards detailed accounts of incidents and inquiries about the locations where these

8 The researcher is originally from the city of Culiacan, Sinaloa.

83 episodes had happened, and then community members would generally recognise further issues in the community. Lastly, a couple of questions were asked about the presence of local authorities in the area. Annex 5 includes the full question guide for semi-structured interviews with community members.

Semi-structured interviews with planning officials and NGOs This set of interviews addressed the research focus on both conceptions and production of urban space. The research is centred on the analysis of manifestations of violence, their effects on urban space and the role of planning in this interaction. To analyse the role of urban planning, an investigation of the actors and mechanisms that „formally‟ produce urban space in Mexican cities was necessary. This was completed through semi-structured interviews and document analysis, to grasp – generally speaking – the planning process in Mexico, and how urban space is officially produced (see chapters 4 and 5).

A total of 27 interviews with planning officials was conducted, lasting between one and two hours, adding up to 40 hours of recording (see annex 2 for a full list). The institutions were selected based on their involvement in urban planning matters. For example, there are similar institutions in both cities: a municipal institute for urban planning (IMPLAN) and public works departments. At state level the structures differ slightly, which is why more interviews at this level were conducted in Aguascalientes; actors working in social development agencies were interviewed, as in the case of SEDESOL9 which often conducts programmes involving urban planning or public urban space (as will be seen in the following chapters).

Additionally, a few semi-structured interviews were conducted with directors of NGOs working in the case-study areas. These interviews were key because as mentioned above, the directors of NGOs working on the peripheries acted as gatekeepers and provided an entry point for the researcher to approach community members. Interviews with local academics involved in planning issues were also sought to provide a critical view of „experts‟ in the field of planning matters.

9 SEDESOL, Ministry of Social Development [Secretaria de Desarrollo Social]

One of the main challenges to completing this set of interviews was the unwillingness of some officials to participate. For some reason, particularly in Culiacan, planning officials were reluctant to be interviewed, whilst others agreed to participate after rescheduling the interview several times. Conversely, in Aguascalientes, most of the planning officials were acquainted with each other, which resulted in one interview leading to another. This became overwhelming for the research, as in some cases three or four interviews lasting up to two hours each were conducted during the same day. The analysis of this set of interviews was conducted in the same way as semi-structured interviews with community members, and is discussed in section 3.4.

Document analysis An analysis of the documentation regarding policies, legislation programmes and plans of urban development planning provides a useful complement to the interviews conducted with planning officials. These „grey literature‟ sources help researchers to determine facts and interpretations, aiding capture of key aspects of data about the phenomena studied (Yin, 1994). Document analysis facilitated and supported the study of the official planning perspective in Culiacan and Aguascalientes. Urban development plans, programmes, bylaws and laws were explored, at national, state and municipal level, to achieve a snapshot of how the planning system in Mexico works (see chapter 4). Documents were selected on the basis of their relevance in order to discern how cities are conceived and managed, who are the main stakeholders involved, what are their responsibilities and what are the main mechanisms and instruments for planning. Overall, document analysis provided a basis for scrutinising the planning system and how cities are affected by it, which is the scope of chapter 6.

Participatory methods Participatory techniques include a variety of techniques. For example, participatory violence appraisals (PVA) use a range of techniques for discussing issues with community members. These can include: group discussions or focus groups; semi-structured interviews (on a one-to-one basis); direct observation; ethno-histories and biographies (on a one-to-one basis); local stories, portraits, and case studies (Moser and McIlwaine, 2006). Other qualitatively-based 85 participatory tools for analysing a case or a community, in relation to violence issues, may be participatory mapping of insecurity, and auto-photography. These two last tools were used in the four selected communities, since they offered the possibility of spatially locating hot spots or problematic areas for communities, and analysing the components of urban space that lead communities to feel a specific way about certain zones or areas (Moser, 2012).

Participatory methods such as mapping and auto-photography therefore provided added depth to the analysis of the impacts of violence and insecurity in urban space. These methods will be discussed in more detail below.

Participatory mapping Participants were requested to elaborate community maps which helped identify spatial traits and characteristics of the communities, recognising and mapping the most important features of the neighbourhood. Participants were provided with a map of their community and asked to draw on it, locating and colour coding different spaces, for example, transit routes (blue), friendly and familiar territories (red), preferred places (yellow), areas they avoid (brown), places where they feel insecure (purple), etc. In total, 25 mapping exercises were completed during fieldwork: 12 in Aguascalientes (seven in Los Pericos and five in Barrio de San Marcos), and 13 in Culiacan (six in 5 de Febrero and seven in Colonia Centro).

Participants in this activity were very enthusiastic. Respondents of the peripheries were particularly excited to be a part of this exercise, and provided the most insightful material for analysis. For example, in 5 de Febrero and Los Pericos, participants consistently coloured places they perceived as insecure and therefore avoided (see chapters 6 and 7). Mapping was a helpful exercise that aided the geographical location of participants‟ perceptions of violent or insecure areas in a way semi-structured interviews could not completely grasp; this activity also allowed exploration of which physical characteristics, in the eyes of inhabitants, caused a place to be perceived as either insecure or secure. Participatory mapping and auto-photography were used together, complementing each other, to analyse the relation between manifestations of violence and their effect on urban space.

Auto-photography Auto-photography is a method of data collection where photographs are taken by participants, rather than the researcher (Schoepfer, 2014; Lombard, 2013). This method offers the possibility of accessing previously unexplored “forms of geographical knowledge” (Lombard, 2013:23), such as mental maps. For this research, the justification of using a method such as auto-photography is that it provided a way of accessing residents' perceptions about urban violence and their conceptions of urban space.

During the activity, participants from the communities were asked to take photographs of a list of places similar to those requested for the mapping activity: preferred routes of access and familiar territories, places that make them feel insecure, where they feel happy and safe, things they like about living in the area, etc. These exercises were important in order to understand communities‟ conception and use of place/space and how insecurity affects this. A total of 13 cameras was given to participants, seven in Culiacan (four in 5 de Febrero and two in Colonia Centro), and six in Aguascalientes (four in Los Pericos and two in Barrio de San Marcos) (see annex 4 and 7).

Participants were given disposable cameras, and a set of instructions. The only restriction, or rather, recommendation, was to avoid including other people‟s faces in the photographs, due to consent and anonymity issues. There were no restrictions as to how many photographs could be taken, other than the limit of the cameras, which contained 27 photos each. Most of the respondents used all the photographs. The cameras were left with participants for a week, and then were collected to be developed. A follow-up interview was conducted with participants in all cases, which proved interesting and useful as analysing photographs with respondents showed that, regarding their perceptions of urban spaces, there is more than meets the eye (see chapters 6 and 7) (Lombard, 2013; Robinson, 2002; Schoepfer, 2014). In this sense, auto-photography represented a space where research participants were able to reflect on their context (Lombard, 2013), conceptions and uses of space, in relation to violence and insecurity.

3.4 Data analysis

Analysis of the data collected was conducted in several stages. Firstly, surveys were analysed according to the research questions and the concepts of interest for the research, namely: 1) respondent‟s background, 2) participation and citizens‟ attachment to the area, 3) satisfaction with urban planning issues and use of spaces, and 4) manifestations of violence and feelings of insecurity. This was translated into four sections in the survey, echoing the research questions (see annex 7).

Firstly, respondents‟ general information on each community was gathered from the data. These profiles included gender, age, civil status, occupation, education, monthly income and number of people in the household, from each respondent. The information can be seen in the graphics below for Los Pericos, in Aguascalientes, where the sample size was 35 respondents. Secondly, the planning section was analysed under three themes: degree of satisfaction with planning/configuration of community, personal and community involvement in planning issues, and perception about outsiders‟ opinion on the community. Lastly, security issues were explored, relating to inhabitants‟ perception of security in their communities, where respondents felt safer, changes in routines or uses of space and activities avoided for fear of being victim of a crime, amongst others.

Following this, data collected through qualitative methods were analysed, starting with semi-structured interviews. The process of analysing semi-structured interviews was conducted in several stages. The first stage of the analysis was to re-listen to the recording of semi-structured interviews to have a clear sense of the recurrent topics; the following stage was transcription of recordings. This stage was difficult and time-consuming due to the number of interviews and their length. One of the research assistants that conducted surveys during fieldwork supported with the transcription of a few interviews. Overall, the process of analysis was more time-consuming and emotional than anticipated, since some of the interviews mentioned sensitive topics regarding victimisation experiences (see section 3.5). This provoked feelings of impotence, listening to how people live with and experience violence and insecurity on an everyday basis, undermining

88 their wellbeing. This later point also speaks of a salient issue that will be discussed amply in the next section (and in chapters 6, 7 and 8): normalisation of violence.

The drafting of two empirical chapters while analysing semi-structured interviews was particularly helpful. This allowed the researcher to develop a close relation with the themes and key findings that arose from the interviews as these were located within the broad conceptual framework of the research. During the further revision of chapters, transcripts have been re-read and analysed under the light of previous assumptions.

Additionally, the analysis of participatory methods such as auto- photography provided an added depth to the research. These methods allowed a visual representation of key issues and topics mentioned by respondents during interviews and surveys. Mapping allowed the geographic location of problematic places whilst photographs permitted visualising these places. To analyse photographs, categories were created according to recurring themes. For example, several participants photographed religious buildings and their homes as „safe areas‟, while certain streets, public areas and abandoned zones were consistently photographed as „insecure‟. Participatory mapping and auto-photography are further analysed in chapters 6 and 7, to support the argument of this research. Ultimately, using these different methods as complementary allowed to present a „snapshot‟ of citizens‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity and the implications for the urban space and planning with an added visual layer that complements the narrative given by interviews and supported by surveys.

3.5 Ethical issues

In my research, the main areas of ethical concern related to: violence as a sensitive research topic, potentially causing distress or harm to participants; dealing with violence and insecurity accounts; and positionality and emotions during research. These themes are explored briefly below.

Causing distress and being distressed: sensitive research topic

One of the main ethical issues of the research was the fact that violence is considered a sensitive topic, that is “a topic that may pose a substantial threat to those involved in the research and that therefore makes the collection, holding, and/or dissemination of research data problematic” (Lee and Renzetti, 1990:512). This definition implies that there might be repercussions for all of those involved in the research, both participants and researchers (Dickson-Swift et al, 2009).

This is the case with studying violence, as it might endanger participants just as much as the researcher. Violence manifestations are diverse and the potential threats vary; for example, the threats and consequences of studying domestic violence differ from those of looking at political violence. For my research, this meant that participants narrated both lived and indirect experiences of violence. The range of research participants interviewed included families of victims of fatal violence, as well as victims of „lower impact crimes‟ such as robberies and mugging, and research participants that had never experienced violence „at first hand‟.

Therefore, certain measures were required to mitigate the intrinsic risks of studying violence and insecurity related topics, both for the researcher and the research participants. For example, I was born in Culiacan, which is statistically a violent city. Hence risks in this context were mitigated through my personal networks and knowledge about what areas to be avoided, what to do and what not to do (for example, e.g. staying in contact with my family and informing them about my plans for the day). The research was therefore carried out whilst living in a safe location, with strong social and support networks. In Aguascalientes, the comparatively safer city, this was managed by forming networks with local organisations, such as NGOs and academic institutions working in the areas under study.

For research participants, the strategy used to deal with the potential harm caused by inquiring about violence-related issues was to be frank about my role, and transparent about the purpose of the research. The confidentiality of the information provided and the anonymity of all respondents was ensured by following the research ethics guidelines of the University of Manchester. Personal

90 data of participants is not revealed in the analysis, and all participants are anonymised in this thesis. With regards to consent, research participants were asked to partake in a voluntary manner, in all manner free from coercion. Consent forms were completed prior to the semi-structured interviews with officials, while oral consent was requested during the completion of interviews and surveys with communities, since community members were distrustful of signing forms; in all cases, respondents had the choice to decline participation in the research, or stop and abandon the interview/survey at any time. Overall, the research was designed and reviewed (by supervisors and the University of Manchester Research and Ethics Committee) to ensure the integrity and safety of everyone involved in the research, including communities, individual respondents and the researcher.

The researcher‟s role in the research process: emotions and positionality

The goal of social science researchers is to „see the world through someone else‟s eyes‟, yet our role undeniably becomes that of a research instrument (Gilbert, 2000); there is greater recognition in social sciences research that to some extent, “the researcher affects the research process” (Widdowfield, 2000:200). It has been suggested that this occurs in a symbiotic relationship: the researcher affects the research process in the same way that the research process has an impact on the researcher. In other words, the emotions and positionality of the researcher at the time of their endeavour have an important place in shaping “how and what we know” (Widdowfield, 2000:199). Emotions, particularly when making violence-related inquiries, affect the research process greatly, reflected in what and who is included and what/who is left out, as well as influencing how the researcher „makes sense‟ of the data (Meth and Malaza, 2010).

An important issue to be aware of, before going to the field, is the emotional toll studying violence issues might have on the researcher. Conducting violence-related research in urban poor peripheral communities in Mexico comes with a certain heaviness: one might be overwhelmed by negative emotions. There are large sections of the population under study living in very violent environments, which largely undermines their wellbeing (adding to poverty, deficient services, and other issues faced by inhabitants). Feelings like sadness, hopelessness, rage and impotence were aroused in me. However, it was not all

91 negative feelings all the time; being constantly asked if I had eaten, receiving offerings of food, and invitations for coffee and cookies with respondents, provoked much more positive emotions. On one occasion, the (elderly) mother of a key participant invited me in to conduct an interview, and then she (the mother) rushed out the door. She returned minutes later with a bottle of soda; I could not refuse it. These were possibly the poorest respondents in the research.

This exemplifies the kindnesses and hospitality of the inhabitants of the peripheries, even to someone they barely knew, which made me feel welcomed and safe. Adding to this, their willingness and enthusiasm to participate particularly in participatory methods was motivating and encouraging. However, realising the extent of violence manifestations, and particularly the normalisation of this in both peripheral neighbourhoods (see sections 6.1 and 7.1), deeply shocked and disconcerted me. I was amazed by the ways in which violence creeps into people‟s lives, most of the time without respondents realising (see for example interview with Diana, chapter 6).

This broad range of emotions and their duality – negative/positive – stopped me from taking for granted stereotypes that might have been transmitted via the first interviews with officials. Looking past „what is known‟ at city level (that is, assumptions made by officials, media and outsiders of the colonias) allowed avoiding stereotypes. Meanwhile, consistently relying on the measures to mitigate risks in fact enabled me to take include areas which would not have been included by an „outsider‟ e.g. moving to some extent freely through these seemingly „dangerous‟ areas, and including a wide range of participants in the study, ie young, elderly, etc.

A way to deal with the researchers‟ emotions, as suggested by Meth and Malaza (2010), is by the action of writing in itself, which has proven cathartic. Firstly, analysing and systematically looking at the perceptions of violence and insecurity and how these are affected by and reflected on urban space has allowed me to understand these dynamics in a more nuanced way, in order to be able to explore the situations faced by communities. Secondly, writing and advancing a more nuanced understanding of sometimes generalised perceptions of violence,

92 and arguing for the importance of these issues has similarly aided with feelings of impotence.

Being harmless and transparent: positionality

The implications of reflecting on the researcher‟s standpoint, or who the researcher is and how he or she seems her/himself in relation to others and in relation to society e.g. gender, age, culture, race and values (Walter, 2014) are that, we might recognise that certain subjectivity is implied in the research. Our standpoint (who we are socially, politically, economically, etc) consequently underpins the questions we ask, how and which answers we seek, and our interpretations of these answers. As mentioned earlier, fieldwork for this research was conducted in a relatively familiar environment for the researcher; some authors contend that being familiar with the research environment enhances the outcomes of the research (Cotterill and Letherby, 1994), however subjective the researcher‟s knowledge of the research site may be. Thus, in this case, my positionality as a native (Mexican), middle-class young woman facilitated the process of accessing communities and conducting research. Particularly for the case of Culiacan, being born there made research participants see me as „local‟.

As a young female student, I was also seen as „non-threatening‟, although in some occasions this represented a power difference in peripheral communities, since most respondents were uneducated. My position as a female provoked various dynamics. For example, whilst conducting semi-structured interviews with planning officials, I was usually patronised by „more experienced‟ male respondents. Added to this, my positionality potentially determined that in several occasions, the „more experienced‟ officials dismissed my research. For example, when trying to arrange a meeting with the municipal manager of public works and services [Gerente Municipal de Obras y Servicios Publicos] in Culiacan, he rescheduled time after time, and at the end refused to meet me because „he was too busy and had plenty of important things to do‟ (personal communication with Obras Publicas director, 2015).

Unpicking views about violence and insecurity

Being able to work in the periphery without incident allowed me to question if certain views from „outsiders‟ (of the community, within the city) are perpetuating views and stigmatising peripheral neighbourhoods. In the case of 5 de Febrero in Culiacan, official data points to the fact that many criminals live in the area, and in this neighbourhood people reported witnessing many types of crime. Comments along the line of “this is a very dangerous colonia [5 de Febrero]” (interview Culiacan Participa, 2015); or “over there is so ugly and desolate, the environment invites you to commit crimes [Los Pericos]”, (interview at IMPLAN Aguascalientes, 2015), additional to what is published in the media, further enforce this view of peripheries as lethal. Being aware of these views, in contrast to the „reality‟ of communities (respondents‟ views) allowed critical examining and reframing of my views of the communities and their urban space, and how the appearance of violence is actually lived and how it impacts on citizens‟ daily experiences. Furthermore, this reaffirms issues identified in the literature of mental constructions of „dangerous spaces‟ and „peripheralisation‟, as discussed in chapter 2.

There are three further issues to highlight, which echo challenges with regards to positionality faced during research and how these were resolved. Firstly, although I conducted research in a context which I was familiar to (both Mexico, my native country, and Culiacan, a city which I knew very well based on my experience as both a student and professional urban planner there), it was very important to be always alert to the physical, social and political environment in which my research was taking place. A key finding which I soon perceived while walking and talking to different people in the communities was that insecurity and violence had different dynamics at city, community and street levels. The fact that I was a woman had implications for the design and the way research was undertaken (e.g., not to be alone in certain areas, always go to the neighbourhood with a research assistant or gatekeeper, restricting working ours to day light, morning sessions from 9-2 pm and 4-6pm to avoid working after dark). However, while in the barrios, I had to be opened minded and allow certain flexibility as I tried to go beyond stereotypes of seeing everyplace as „dangerous places‟ or every person that I did not knew as a potential risk. Being open to residents‟ perceptions

94 of places and going beyond stereotypes was essential in my research, as the focus lies in residents‟ perceptions of urban space and violence.

Secondly, this flexible approach also required „thinking outside the box‟, and addressing some of these issues using other research methods and tools. In the particular case of the communities of 5 de Febrero, Los Pericos, Colonia Centro and Barrio de San Marcos, incorporating visual methods to do spatial analysis was extremely useful because these captured very graphically a sense of „place‟ and „insecurity‟ based on residents‟ perceptions. This suggests that visual methods might be applicable to a variety of urban development themes that go beyond violence and insecurity, and could also be a powerful tool for urban planners. For example, they could be used to study infrastructure and water related problems, and even climate change, as these methods „capture‟ in a very graphic way respondents‟ realities, and how they perceive critical problems, as well as the areas where these phenomena take place. Visual methods also helped to avoid posing directly sensitive questions to do with violence and insecurity that for the interviewee might be difficult to answer orally to a person that she/he does not know at all, so in a way, visual methods allowed for an alternative way into these issues.

Working in an insecure context attention to detail was particularly helpful when asking people to take part in participatory methods. For example, for the auto-photography activity, explicitly asking people not to include other people‟s faces provided a sense of security for participants, as they need not be concerned with crime perpetrators at all but could rather focus on space and particular places.

The third point links to the point above as of the way interviews were conducted to allow „sensitive topics‟ related to violence to come up without forcing an agenda on participants. Starting with non-violence related questions and themes allowed the participant to guide the interviews and later on to feel confident to share their views on violence and urban space with the researcher, as they were spontaneously mentioned by respondents within the flow of the interview. Conversely, starting directly with violent related questions could have

95 caused respondents to be suspicious about the nature of the research, or become distressed.

Concluding comments

This chapter has presented the methodological approach that underpins research questions and the methods of data collection implemented to answer them. Research questions were formulated informed by a critical realism ontology in support of the research aim, which is to explore citizens‟ perceptions of urban violence and insecurity in Mexico, analysing their relation with urban space and the role of planning processes in this interaction. A mixed-methods approach was selected because it offers the possibility of using quantitative data to complement rich qualitative data gathered during fieldwork in order to analyse manifestations of violence, their impact on urban spaces and the role of planning. This approach also allowed overcoming limitations of both methods and facilitated a multi-level analysis – including state, municipal and community levels – to be conducted.

Rich data were generated through surveys and semi-structured interviews with community members that enabled an understanding of their perceptions of violence, insecurity, and the effects these have on inhabitants‟ conceptions and uses of urban space. These methods were enhanced by participatory methods of data collection, such as mapping and auto-photography. The use of participatory methods to gather data and visually represent the implications of violence and insecurity on urban space added a layer of depth to the understanding of how people conceive and use space in contexts of violence. Semi-structured interviews with planning officials elucidated key issues of the planning system in Mexico and how these interact with violence and insecurity. Some ethical implications similarly were outlined; particularly how certain official „discourses‟ and the way urban planning officials refer to peripheral communities might entrench conceptions of these places as „no-go areas‟ and „very dangerous places‟. This has implications for the ways in which planning processes occur (further discussed in chapter 4).

The methodological approach, research design and strategy, along with methods of data collection guided the empirical work. The main findings from the

96 data are presented in chapters 4 through 7. The following chapter, chapter 4, presents the context at national, state and city level of the case studies selected, while chapter 5 „sets the scene‟ of urban issues at community level, in order to frame the discussion of violence and insecurity-related findings in the subsequent chapters 6 and 7. An analytical cross-comparison is made in chapter 8, once the four community case studies are introduced.

CHAPTER 4 Urban planning and socio-spatial responses to violence in Mexico

The big question is not really why there has been no planning but why the planning has produced cities as we know them today (Angotti and Irazábal, 2017:5)

Introduction

This chapter puts themes discussed in previous chapters in the context of two Mexican mid-sized cities: Culiacan and Aguascalientes. The chapter pays close attention to the conditions of urban space in these cities and the nature of the planning processes that produce it, as well as the ways in which planning might be generating certain conditions in “cities as we know them today” as the citation above suggests, that induce the appearance of violence and perceptions of insecurity. The chapter provides a brief account of the drivers shaping the patterns of urban development, and the way accelerated urban expansion has impacted Mexican cities while focusing on different scales of urban analysis: federal, state and municipal. A range of planning issues including the legislative and institutional history, and the role of planning practice within this are covered here, as well as problems with planning especially market-led approaches.

Chapter 4 together with the following chapter 5 describe some of the features that have shaped the socio-spatial inequalities and structural exclusions that characterise urban development in Mexico, and in the specific cities of Culiacan and Aguascalientes (including the four settlements and neighbourhoods which are the main focus of this research). Both chapters attempt to show how socio-spatial inequalities are reproduced via existing institutional and planning processes at different governmental levels. Depicting the processes leading to the configuration of urban space will allow the framing of the discussion on different manifestations of urban violence and citizens‟ perceptions of insecurity, how violence and urban space relate, and finally, what role planning plays in this interaction (chapters 6 and 7). This chapter incorporates research findings, in particular gives an account of planning practice in both city contexts that draws on the perceptions of those involved.

The chapter begins by outlining the overarching problems that rapid urban growth has had on Mexican cities. This is followed by a brief overview on urban violence and insecurity in Mexico, and national socio-spatial responses to address these issues. Subsequently, the profiles of the cities of Culiacan and Aguascalientes are introduced, highlighting social and historical contextual information on urban development and planning policies at state and municipal levels. Finally a critical comparison of the planning systems in Culiacan and Aguascalientes is made, leading to chapter conclusions.

4.1 Urban development, planning and socio-spatial responses to violence in Mexico

Urbanisation and unequal socio-spatial development

The expansion of Mexican cities started in the late 1950s when economic development and urban growth was accelerated by migration from rural to urban areas (Garza, 2010). By the 1980s Mexico became a predominantly urban country (Gobierno de la Republica, 2014) as half of its population lived in cities. During this period the period of strong neoliberal policies (1990-2000) 349 cities were classed as metropolitan, representing 67.3 per cent of Mexico‟s urban area‟ (Garza, 2010; Gobierno de la Republica, 2014). In 2005, the „system of cities10‟ or urban national system increased to 367 and urbanisation to 69.2 per cent (Azuela, 2010).

Urbanisation will continue, although at a slower rate than in previous decades, and it has been predicted that between 2010 and 2030 the population living in urban areas will probably increase from 71.6 per cent to 83.2 per cent (Gobierno de la Republica, 2014). The overall rapid pace of urbanisation presents multiple challenges to different levels of government to plan and manage urban development and urban land use. A major challenge is the disproportionate expansion of urban areas. Urban sprawl has not always corresponded to population growth; while the urban population doubled during the last 30 years,

10 ‘System of cities’ or the urban national system is the group of cities of 15,000 or more inhabitants which are functionally related, whereby any significant change in one city is conducive to alterations in other cities. This definition, used for the first time in 1976 by Luis Unikel et al, is currently employed by INEGI and CONAPO (Garza, 2003; Borah et al, 1974; Unikel et al, 1976).

99 total urban area multiplied six-fold (Gobierno de la Republica, 2014). This phenomenon was exacerbated by housing policies that allowed for new large- scale residential urban developments (fraccionamientos) to be constructed on the fringes of cities and by the irregular occupation of land at the peripheries (Connolly et al, 2007; Eibenschutz and Goya, 2009).

Land is the most valuable and scarce resource in Mexican cities, and its management is critical in urban development planning (Gobierno de la Republica, 2014). Nevertheless, land markets have been affected by recent housing policies, and prior to this by the provision of services and regularisation of peripheral neighbourhoods. Brownfield sites with services have experienced price increases, and become unaffordable for low-income populations. Another aspect influencing the expansion of cities is the housing policy promoted by federal government, especially via INFONAVIT11, that privileged the massive provision of funding for new housing regardless of its territorial, urban and environmental impact (Gobierno de la Republica, 2014). This housing policy incentivised the consolidation of a peripheral low-density development pattern with predominantly residential uses; a „model‟ that has had significant negative effects on social cohesion, the economy and the connectivity of cities (Garza, 2010).

The effects of these policies are tangible; cities have expanded at the peripheries while housing developments are increasingly disconnected from the rest of the city (Eibenschutz and Goya, 2009). The failure of the public housing sector to provide affordable housing for the majority of the urban poor was a driver for the proliferation of informal settlements in the 20th century (Ward, 1999). Neither could people earning low wages and/or working in informal sectors access regular available land, thus they resorted to illegal appropriation of peripheral vacant areas. This situation generated the expansion of cities and led to the incorporation of land into urban development by informal means (Ward, 1999). One of INFONAVIT‟s limitations was that it offered housing only to people working in formal jobs. With growing economic informality (Brandt, 2011) a large section of the population was unable to access housing via formal and legal options. The response to the limited access to land and housing which

11 INFONAVIT, National Funding Institute for Workers’ Housing [Instituto del Fondo Nacional para la Vivienda de los Trabajadores]

100 was far away from jobs, and lacked amenities, and infrastructure to which low- income populations resorted was to settle in illegally subdivided ejidos12, or by invading public or private land (Ward, 1999).

It is estimated that five million housing plots are irregular and that nationally an average of 90,000 plots – former ejidal land – are informally subdivided every year, involving about 360,000 people among buyers, sellers and intermediaries (Gobierno de la Republica, 2014). To manage these processes, in 1974, the Commission for the Regularisation of Land Tenure [Corett, by its Spanish acronym] was created. Since then Corett has granted about 2.7 million title deeds, although, regularisation rates have fallen dramatically and in regularised land, the prices have increased, reaching formal market prices (Gobierno de la Republica, 2014).

This territorial expansion and urban sprawl undeniably represent challenges to the three levels of government‟s capacity to plan and control the process of settlement, and service provision. Adding to these issues, the proliferation of violence and insecurity has impacted urban space in negative ways as these phenomena have become defining traits of Mexican cities. The next section explores urban violence and insecurity at a national level.

Urban violence and insecurity in Mexico As outlined in the introduction chapter, violence in Mexico – most commonly expressed in terms of homicide rates – has risen exponentially since 2006. The frontal war against drugs in Mexico that began in the administration of President Calderon (2006-2012) “escalated the level, intensity, and severity of violence” (Carpenter, 2010:402). This frontal war also provoked, as suggested by Guerrero-Gutierrez (2012) a geographical spreading of homicides due to the fragmentation of the drug cartels, which occurred as a response to the measures taken by the government (see Figure 4.1). According to SEGOB and SESNSP (2013), between December 2006 and October 2012 (Calderon‟s presidency) there were 101,199 homicides.

12 An ejido refers to land communally owned by farmers under Mexican legislation. Lombard (2009) notes that ejidal land has had an important role in the development in Mexican cities, even when the urbanisation of ejidos is often done illegally, through intermediaries.

101

Figure 4.1 States with high homicide rates per 100 000 inhabitants.

Source: Sistema Nacional de Seguridad, data from January to July 2016

However, the focus on narco-related violence and the fact that it is usually expressed in terms of homicide rates tends to blur the presence and causes of other violence manifestations in Mexico. For example, during May 2015 a homicide was reported every 30 minutes and a kidnapping every eight hours; during the first five months of 2015, a violent robbery occurred every three minutes (Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, 2015). Broadly speaking, these figures are indicative of the fact that violence exists in almost every Mexican city, and in the lives of citizens, and that it is not necessarily linked to narco-violence.

In 2015, a total of 1,545,762 crimes were reported to SEGOB and SESNSP (2015), of which robberies represented 36.5 per cent. There are, however, discrepancies in measurements of crime incidence between organisations. SEGOB and SESNSP (2016) only records „averiguaciones previas‟ or investigations and inquiries made by public state ministries, which relies on crimes being reported and taken up by the relevant agency at state level; while ENVIPE, a victimisation survey, records perceptions of security. In terms of common robbery statistics, for example, ENVIPE (2016) estimated from January to December 2015 a total of 29.3 million crimes, associated with 23.3 million victims, roughly 1.3 crimes per victim aged 18 years old and over; which

102 represented a crime incidence rate of 28.2 per 100,000 people. According to ENVIPE, the main crimes reported are common robbery and assault, followed by extortion.

As shown above, the geographical distribution of violence, crime incidence and perceptions of insecurity in the country are far from even. The cases of Sinaloa and Aguascalientes illustrate this disparity across Mexico; the homicide rate in Sinaloa (20.4 per 100,000) was well above the national figure, as was the perception of insecurity reported (72.2 per cent); while in Aguascalientes there were 1.9 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants (the third lowest rate nationally) as opposed to 42.5 per cent perception of insecurity. However, higher perceptions of insecurity in states do not always seem to coincide with the higher homicides rates (see Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2); this is a theme which emerged from research findings and will explore in chapters 6 and 7 at the community level.

Figure 4.2 Public safety perceptions by state in Mexico (percentages).

Source: ENVIPE, 2016.

In summary, this thesis argues that drug-related violence measured by homicides offers at best a skewed vision of the urban violence affecting Mexico, since „everyday‟ types of violence increasingly affect urban areas. The escalation and pervasiveness of violence has not been fully grasped by authorities, prompting policy responses to violence that have allegedly worsened the situation rather than reversing it or preventing more violence (eg, Merida Initiative). In

103 order to analyse the role of planning in the relation between urban space and urban violence and insecurity, the following section analyses critically how urban planning occurs in Mexico, before briefly reviewing security policies and socio- spatial interventions which aim to respond to violence at a national level.

Planning policies, socio-spatial responses to violence, and insecurity in Mexico

Based on the definition of planning provided in chapter 2, and generally speaking, urban development planning in Mexico is influenced by a complex and disjointed legal and regulatory apparatus at federal, state and municipal level (Connolly, 1999). Urban planning departments and agendas at different levels do not appear to complement each other (Connolly, 1999). As mentioned before, Mexico witnessed an accelerated urbanisation process during the 1940s-1980s (Garza, 2010), where the construction industry accounted for continuous economic growth during the „Mexican Miracle13‟ (Valenzuela-Aguilera, 2017). This was characterised by an accelerated urban expansion which Davis (2014) argues was influenced by modernist planning. This planning tradition proposed that the predominant function of cities was to serve as “privileged sites for economic expansion and progress” (Davis, 2014: 377). With economic and industrial progress as the aim, the development of urban plans was set around accommodating the needs of industry, and ordering the spatial relations of work, recreation and transport, giving rise to differentiated urban spaces that generated entrenched social, economic, political and spatial conditions (Davis, 2014).

A side effect of this was that the long tradition of high levels of social and economic inequality in Mexico (Esquivel, 2011) were cemented through the urban space of the city, which followed a strict spatial order, based on zoning uses, whereby areas of the city were designated for specific functions (Davis, 2016). This also meant that mixed land uses or informal activities were not tolerated, pushing low-income citizens to the peripheries, where informality was invisible (Davis, 2016). As a result, large portions of the urban population were

13 Refers to the period 1940-1970, where a large portion of Mexico’s population was employed in the construction industry financed by the state. This was based on the broader national economic policy of Import Substitution Industrialisation, and involved mostly construction of infrastructure

104 forced to live outside the bounds or the limits of the „formal‟ city, reinforcing stigma over those citizens living on the peripheries as marginal, and informal (Davis, 2016). This point resonates with some of the issues planners face at municipal level, where the city is „planned for‟ where it is more visible – i.e. city centres. This marginalisation has allowed official planners to justify neglecting, ignoring or destroying certain neighbourhoods while privileging others, and to construct official discourses which both reflect and reinforce spatial segregation (Davis, 2016; Lombard, 2009).

Planning in Mexico: National level legislation, plans and programmes

Formal urban planning in Mexico is linked to the decree of the Human Settlements Law (Ley General de Asentamientos Humanos, or LGAH by its Spanish acronym) in 1976, although there were a few scattered initiatives relating to planning before this (Azuela, 2010). This law enforced the centralised and normative character of urban planning, while also providing the basis to enact urban development laws, plans and bylaws in every state to regulate urban planning (Chaparro, 2009). The LGAH also established the Federation‟s right to dictate the necessary measures to ensure orderly develop human settlement by homogenising the legislation and institutions in charge of the administration of cities in the country, mainly as a response to the urban sprawl the country experienced during the 1940s-1980s (Azuela, 2010).

That same year, the Ministry of Human Settlements and Public Works (SAHOP) was created, as a national ministry specialising in planning population centres, urban ecology, and infrastructure, zoning uses, and housing matters (Azuela, 2010). Under the Secretaria‟s authority, the first National Urban Development Plan was produced in 1978, institutionalising the action of the state's territorial organisation. Nevertheless, this period followed the „Mexican Miracle‟, when social and economic problems started to emerge due to the unsustainable nature of the prevailing economic model (Import Substitution Industrialisation), and the attention previously paid to national urban planning was subsumed to economic and social matters, which ended up dominating the overall politics of the country.

105

SAHOP disappeared in 1982, and its responsibilities were transferred to the newly created Ministry of Urban Development and Ecology in the same year, eventually to the Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL), and since the beginning of 2014 to the Ministry of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development (SEDATU). One thing that remained unchanged, however, was the creation of a National Urban Development Plan within every administration in charge – even if the responsible ministry changed.

For some key observers in the field (Azuela, 2010; COLMEX, 2010; Connolly, 1999), then, urban planning in Mexico was conceived and promoted as a supplementary tool for economic and social development, rather than an integral discipline to manage the development of cities. In this sense, urban planning was limited to a spatial management framework in accordance with LGAH‟s requirements.

Through a decree of the LGAH implemented by a reform made to Article 115 of the Mexican constitution in 1976, the process of assigning regulatory competences was handed down to the municipalities. This meant that planning capabilities were transferred to states and municipalities. Furthermore, the reform also left the agreement of responsibilities between states and municipalities to these entities. According to Azuela (2010) and Garza (2010) what occurred in 1976 was an advance in planning matters, since the previous „doctrine‟ allowed the Federal level to impose limitations on private property. Through the new system of plans, local authorities were empowered to perform this function. Thus, the most important change in terms of planning law more generally, was the decentralisation of planning processes.

During this period, the norms and legislation guiding urban planning advanced, and new organisational structures were introduced. Nevertheless, this has been the main constraint of urban development planning in Mexico: the evolution of urban planning has been focused on strengthening its normative character – i.e. on development control via norms, as opposed to strategic planning (Chaparro, 2009). Even though the municipalities were given competences to decide urban matters, local governments have not been able to deal with the major issues cities are facing, such as management of land, urban

106 sprawl, housing provision, and irregular settlements. This is caused by many factors, some of which are discussed below, such as the fact that planning is understood as „planning for housing‟; inadequate instrumentation of planning policies; and municipal planning institutions‟ lack of financial independence.

Since the 1990s, then, the federal urban planning structure has been systematically dismantled under the implicit premise that market-led mechanisms should allocate land uses and urban services, and thus lead the development of cities (Azuela, 2010; Chaparro, 2009; COLMEX, 2010; Garza, 2010). This market-oriented development generated by federal planning structures, and arguably contextualised by global processes such as neoliberalism (Portes and Roberts, 2005) has incentivised land speculation and urban sprawl. Ceding the processes that lead urban development to the market is not exclusive to the federal level, but is also seen at state and municipal levels.

As mentioned above, since 2014, the organisation responsible for urban planning and carrying out the responsibilities outlined in the LGAH is SEDATU, which was established with the aim of

promoting territorial organisation and planning as articulators of welfare for people, and an efficient use of land; to encourage the orderly growth of human settlements, population centres and metropolitan areas; consolidating compact, productive, competitive, inclusive and sustainable cities, facilitating mobility and increasing the quality of life of its inhabitants; promoting access to housing through well-placed and humane housing solutions in accordance with international quality standards (Secretaria de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano, 201314). While the purpose of SEDATU is ambitious and central to urban development planning, planning has been ineffectively managed. The total population of the country increased from 48.2 million in 1970 to 103.3 million in 2005, during which the urban population increased from 22.7 million to 71.5 million, representing almost 90 per cent of total national population growth (Garza, 2010). This is a fundamental element in understanding the peculiarities and challenges of a “hegemonic urban Mexican society” (Garza and Schteingart, 2010), as urban development planning became less relevant to the federal

14 Translations from documentation are made by the author.

107 government. The disregard for urban planning increased in the period of President Calderon (2006-2012) as a National Urban Development Programme was not published for the first time since the adoption of LGAH. In 2013, under the administration of President Peña Nieto (2012-2018), SEDATU was created with the aim of amalgamating federal capabilities regarding urban planning under a single Ministry.

Some authors (Azuela, 2010; Garza, 2010; Ward, 1999) argue that the planning law framework at federal level generated dynamics that reduced the effectiveness of urban planning at lower levels. For example, the Agrarian Law and the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection have generated the unintentional expansion of cities; both encourage divestiture of ejidos (Jones and Ward, 1998) and thus a land market in the outskirts of cities and allow (through environmental impact assessments) the building of large infrastructure projects; these encourage the territorial expansion of cities, such as roads, airports, tourist developments, among others.

One of SEDATU‟s its main responsibilities was to generate the Programa Sectorial de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano (PSDA) which aimed to standardise criteria regarding the planning, control and quality of growth of cities and metropolitan areas. However, the PSDA focused on housing issues and, in doing so, it failed to grasp and acknowledge the complex nature of urban development planning.

Regarding federal planning regulations, it is important to mention the Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano (PNDU) 2014-2018, which has aims, such as chieving control over sprawling cities to consolidate and improve the quality of life of the inhabitants and consolidating a model of urban development for citizens that generates welfare, ensuring social, economic and environmental sustainability. The PNDU objectives are very general and, although they describe specific strategies and „Lineas de Accion‟, the processes necessary for achieving these objectives are not clear. As with the PSDA, the plan seems to understand urban development planning primarily as planning for housing, instead of trying to manage the complex multi-dynamic processes that urban development planning encompasses. The promotion of „compact‟ cities was a term constantly used by

108 officials from planning institutions at state and municipal levels interviewed in Aguascalientes and Sinaloa, which exemplifies some of the planning limitations mentioned before:

The configuration of compact cities reinforces the urban fabric and social cohesion since its inhabitants can have more time to share with their families and communities. A model with these features also contributes to the prevention of crime and the generation of alternatives to reduce settlements in risk areas, through material actions of public services and housing (Gobierno de la Republica. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2014a). As the citation implies, planning authorities expect a „compact‟ model to prevent crime through „material actions of public services and housing‟. However, as discussed in the following chapters, this planning „model‟ fails to respond to overarching issues of violence and insecurity, and therefore socio- spatial responses to violence have had marginal success. Thus a „compact‟ city model offers a skewed and limited concept of planning, since it does not mention mechanisms or particular policies or attainable goals which support the logic of this type of urban development.

Coining concepts and attempting to adapt them with limited regard to context echoes Chaparro (2009:56), who argues that some of the social, economic and environmental issues observed in Latin American and Mexican cities are products of an urban planning system that he calls “urbanism without city”, where a dissociation between proposals, plans and programmes and their implementation in reality prevails. Data emerging from interviews with officials at state and municipal level is discussed further below in support of this argument.

Concurring with the literature, evidence from interviews suggest other critical issues underpinning planning‟s limitations include the lack of financial independence of planning institutions, poor professionalisation of urban development officials, and, most commonly failures in implementation of planning policies, as well as lack of follow up, management and evaluation of policies. The fact that Mexican municipal administrations are elected for three years hampers the cohesion of municipal planning authorities and the fulfilment of long-term goals. Each new administration publishes new urban development plans with limited time for implementation (Jones and Ward, 1998). The Mexican

109 planning system thus appears to have good intentions, reflected in ambitious objectives set out in national plans and programmes; but on the ground planning processes are conducted in a disjointed and disorganised manner, limiting the potential planning has in responding to pressing issues such as violence and insecurity.

Responses to violence come from a variety of perspectives, from public health to militarisation policies. The next section outlines policy initiatives that aim to respond to violence in the country that have had particular implications for urban violence, planning and socio-spatial responses, focusing on the programme for national safety, and previous attempts at reducing and preventing violence through the built environment, such as PRONAPRED.

National socio-spatial responses to violence and insecurity

Política Pública de Seguridad y Procuración de Justicia [Public Policy for Safety and Justice Attorney]

This public policy derives from the Programa para la Seguridad Nacional 2014-2018. In discourse, it emphasises crime prevention, and privileges the use of intelligence and technology in the fight against crime. This policy is based on 10 action strategies that “will restore peace for Mexicans”, and according to Presidencia de la República (2014), this policy and the National Security programme are implemented through four public policy instruments that are linked to each other: National Justice Procurement Programme, Programme for the Social Prevention of Violence and Delinquency, National Public Safety Programme and National Security Programme. Of these, the Programme for the Social Prevention of Violence and Delinquency, –or PRONAPRED for its Spanish acronym –is of special interest for my research, as it includes violence prevention and to some extent the built environment. This policy thus is operationalised by PRONAPRED and is discussed below.

110

Programa Nacional de Prevencion del Delito: PRONAPRED

PRONAPRED is a national violence and crime prevention programme, enacted by the current administration in 2014 and coordinated by the Secretaria de Gobernacion [Interior Ministry]. It aims to

strengthen social prevention of violence and crime and foster the causes and factors that generate such social prevention, seeking to promote community cohesion and reinforcing the social fabric, in coordination with the three levels of government, the Poderes de la Unión [Executive, Legislative and Judicial], organised civil society, national and international organisations and citizenship (Gobierno de la Republica. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2014b) [Author translation]). PRONAPRED is financed by the federal government; but it is implemented by local governments. It is based on the logic of violence and crime prevention. There is evidence of previous violence prevention policies of this kind in Mexico. However, during the current administration (2012-2018) these have been improved in structure, design and budget. The programme officially started in 2013. After two years of implementation, PRONAPRED has spent over 5 billion pesos (about £250 million). Mexico Evalua (2015) conducted an evaluation of the programme and found that in 2014 alone 2.5 billion pesos were spent, accounting for 13.7 per cent of the total federal funding for public security.

The table below ranks the top 10 most frequent activities of PRONAPRED (Table 4.1). Workshops for developing skills or promoting moral values are the prevalent activity; followed by artistic and cultural activities, sports, crafts workshops and rehabilitation of public spaces. Almost five per cent of the total actions recorded in two years relate to public space rehabilitation including on the one hand, the design of or modifications to the physical built environment, in line with the CPTED theory, to ultimately reduce opportunities for crime. On the other hand, the rehabilitation of public spaces seeks to foster community cohesion and a sense of identity and belonging among inhabitants.

111

Table 4.1 PRONAPRED activities by frequency, 2014

Frequency Ranking Action Percentage (activities in 2014)

1 Skills and moral values workshop 955 17.1

2 Artistic and cultural workshops 463 8.3

3 Sports 424 7.6 4 Professions workshops 409 7.3 Thematic public campaign 5 368 6.6 (informative)

6 Public spaces rehabilitation 274 4.9

7 Artistic and cultural events 252 4.5

Forming and training 8 203 3.6 neighbourhood committees

9 Training community leaders 189 3.4

10 Direct attention to victims 183 3.3

Total 5,588 100

Source: adapted from Mexico Evalua, 2015

Table 4.2 (below) shows that although the rehabilitation of public spaces ranks sixth in terms of frequency (Table 4.2), it ranks first for budget spending. In total 334 million Mexican pesos were assigned to this type of activity, equivalent to 13.5 per cent of PRONAPRED‟s total budget in 2014. Only 36 per cent of the rehabilitation of spaces selected for intervention provided a clear account of how these were selected (Mexico Evalua, 2015. Mexico Evalua (2015) argues that only a very small percentage of the spaces rehabilitated are justified under the logic that these are insecure locations, while the selection of the rest is not clearly justified. In fact, the policy states that not all rehabilitations are intended to address unsafe places. Most of these actions seek to rehabilitate urban spaces in order to generate community life, social cohesion, teamwork, empowerment and a sense of identity and belonging.

112

Table 4.2 PRONAPRED Activities by budget allocation, 2014

Percentage (of total Budget (Mexican Type of action PRONAPRED pesos) budget)

Public spaces rehabilitation 334 277 894 13.5

Construction of building 288 207 643 11.7

Skills and moral values workshop 246 620 910 10

Sports 239 889 527 9.7

Artistic and cultural workshops 161 429 621 6.5

Professions workshops 152 344 548 6.2 Building rehabilitation 119 256 953 4.8 Building equipment 96 253 172 3.9

Direct attention to victims 87 579 899 3.5

Thematic public campaign 81 036 390 3.3 (informative) Total 2,364’667,800 100

Source: adapted from Mexico Evalua, 2015

International evidence on interventions in physical space for crime reduction shows that to be most effective, efforts should focus on high-crime areas (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011; Cozens, 2011). The importance of developing context-specific actions designed to meet the specific needs of the community and, above all, the type of criminal activity targeted, has been highlighted before (Eck and Guerette, 2012). Therefore, the interventions proposed and financed by PRONAPRED should be based on detailed diagnostics that properly address the problems identified. This is one of the main critiques of PRONAPRED, as in previous years, the distribution of funds was determined solely on the number of homicides and the number of potential beneficiaries in a given area. Proper planning of the programme would require resource allocation based on the problems needing to be addressed and the objectives to be achieved in each of the selected areas for implementation (Mexico Evalua, 2015).

113

However, the granting of funding is not linked to a previous diagnosis of risk factors; the distribution of subsidies does not take into account the various forms of violence and crime as it only responds to homicide rates (Mexico Evalua, 2015). Thus, the programme fails to acknowledge and respond to the multi-dimensional violence in Mexico. Basing prevention policies and actions, as well resource allocation, on homicide rates alone endangers their effectiveness.

The absence of disaggregated information at community level is one of the main limitations of PRONAPRED. Having adequate diagnostic information at this level is key for the design of the intervention, in order to focus on specific problems, rather than a „one size fits all‟ logic. Analysis of this information should be carefully conducted to detect phenomena that may go unnoticed, as official data tends to generalise. This represents further issues for local authorities, as they rarely have „street level‟ information available to inform these diagnoses which would effectively guide PRONAPRED‟s preventative actions. In particular, this kind of initiative, along with others which will be discussed in the following sections, fails to incorporate citizens‟ perceptions at street and community level into the analysis of violence and insecurity. Citizens‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity (see chapters 6 and 7) affect their lives in many ways, and are of paramount importance for the elaboration of appropriate policy responses, both in inner-city neighbourhoods and in peripheral settlements.

The next sections present the general characteristics of the two state and city case studies, Culiacan and Aguascalientes. These introduce the socio- economic and demographic characterstics of each city case study, focusing on urban development processes and the planning policies which help configure the actual conditions of urban space.

114

4.2 Urban planning, and socio-spatial responses to violence in Culiacan

History and social change

The municipality of Culiacan is the capital of the state of Sinaloa located in north-west Mexico (Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4). The city of Culiacan was founded in 1531 as Villa de San Miguel (Ayuntamiento de Culiacan, 2014). The city has been a focal point for coastal trade, due to the port of Altata, which since 1834 has connected Culiacan to Mazatlan, and other parts of the Pacific coast (Ayuntamiento de Culiacan, 2014).

Figure 4.3 Location of Sinaloa in Mexico

Source: adapted from (H. Ayuntamiento de Culiacan, 2014)

The key location of Culiacan during the Porfiriato15 gave rise to a phase of rapid urbanisation. Culiacan is distinguised by a strong economic agricultural base, which is still one of the strongest in the country (INEGI, 2010). From 1940 onwards, the urban population continued to grow in an uncontrolled manner, provoking during the 1960s the first attempts at urban planning legislation frameworks and structures (Lujano, 2011; Vega Ochoa, 2004).

15 The Porfiriato is a period of Mexican history (1884-1910) where Porfirio Diaz was president. With Diaz, the Mexican economy grew notably, as the Northern Railway was constructed, along with textile factories, sugar mills and other industries. The period was also characterised by extremely marked inequalities between the vulnerable social classes and the affluent class, and labour, education and social policy changes (Margain, 1965; Walker, 1981).

115

Figure 4.4 Location of the municipality of Culiacan in Sinaloa.

Source H. Ayuntamiento de Culiacan (2014)

According to CONAPO (2010a), the population of Culiacan and surrounding areas in 2014 was estimated to be 928,801 inhabitants16, with the predominant group being under 29 years (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Population of Culiacan by age and sex.

Age Men Women Total Percentage

0-14 131,240 126,168 257,408 28

15-29 121,365 123,982 245,347 26

30-44 100,490 109,716 210,206 23

45-64 75,959 85,314 161,273 17 65+ 24,897 29,670 54,567 6 Total 453,951 474,850 928,801

Total (%) 49 51 100

Source: CONAPO 2010

For 2010, the municipality reported 218,224 hoseholds, accounting for 30.7 per cent of total houses in Sinaloa, of which 59,781 were single-women- headed households (see Table 4.4). This has important economic implications as

16 This figure includes conurbated areas of Culiacan, i.e. surrounding municipalities.

116

27.3 per cent of all the houses in the municipality are single-income earning households, representing 33.6 per cent of the state total (INEGI, 2010).

Table 4.4 Comparison between population in Culiacan (municipality) and Sinaloa (state) in 2010. Indicator Culiacan Sinaloa Total population 858 638 2 767 761 Total of private 218 224 709 960 inhabited houses Average size of household (persons per 3.9 3.9 house) Households headed by 59 781 178 173 women Average schooling in population older than 15 9.9 9.1 years Total of primary and 1358 6468 secondary school

Source: H. Ayuntamiento de Culiacan (2014) and CONEVAL, 2012.

The average number of persons per household in Culiacan was 3.9, equal to the state average. Poverty measurements are conducted by CONEVAL according to the General Law of Social Development [Ley General de Desarrollo Social], based on data gathered by INEGI. In Culiacan in 2010, CONEVAL estimated that 29.3 per cent of the population lived in poverty1718, of which three per cent lived in extreme poverty. The following are the indicators of social deprivation for Culiacan, including poverty and deprivation (Figure 4.5).

17 According to CONEVAL, a person in Mexico lives in poverty if he/she has a monthly income of less than the wellbeing baseline, that is $2,542 Mexican pesos (about £127) for urban zones and $1,614 (£82) for rural areas and has one or more social deprivations, for example, lacks access to education or health services. A person lives in extreme poverty if his/her income is below the minimum baseline for wellbeing (which considers only access to food [Canasta alimentaria]), that is $1,242 (£62) in urban areas and $868 (£43) in rural areas and has at least three social deprivations (ie, lacks education, access to health services and social security). 18 There are several indicators of social deprivations, for example: educational deficit, access to health services, access to social security, quality and spaces of housing, basic services in the home and access to food. In that sense, ‘vulnerable by social deprivation’ refers to the population that has one or more social deprivations, but whose income is above the wellbeing line. Vulnerability by income refers to the population which has no social deprivation but whose income is less than or equal to the welfare line.

117

Figure 4.5 Indicators of social deprivation and vulnerability in Culiacan for 2010.

Source: H. Ayuntamiento de Culiacan (2014) and CONEVAL (2012)

Similarly, the marginalisation index provided by CONAPO (2010) is a useful tool for determining the areas with higher deprivation indices, which includes a valuable geographical component. CONAPO implements a wide range of indicators19 to determine a marginalisation index by AGEB20. The results for Culiacan can be seen in the following map (Figure 4.6). In total, the city of Culiacan has 218,224 households of which 98 per cent have electricity; 95 per cent sanitation; 94 per cent concrete floors (i.e. not dirt floors); and 96 per cent at least one toilet. According to the Junta de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado de Culiacán or JAPAC [the Board of Water Supply and Sewerage Culiacan], 99 per cent of the city has a water supply.

19 The indicators used by CONAPO include education, access to health, type and conditions of housing, water availability, availability of drainage and household livelihoods, among others. 20 AGEB, area geoestadistica basica [geoestatistical basic area] is a unit of measure implemented by INEGI, it represents a subdivision of offices or municipalities that make up the country. It allows the formation of primary sampling units and organisation of statistical information. It has three key attributes: it is easily recognisable in the field by being bounded by identifiable and lasting topographical features; usually is homogeneous in terms of geographical, economic and social characteristics; has a manageable geographical extension that can be covered by a single person walking when making the study; eg, the analyst)

118

A concentration of the highest levels of marginalisation can be seen in the western part of the urban area, in Colonia 5 de Febrero and its surroundings: Colonia Renato Vega Amador, Colonia Amistad and Esperanza. Similarly, other areas south and west of the city have medium to high marginalisation levels.

Figure 4.6 Marginalisation index by AGEB in Culiacan with case study areas indicated.

Source: adapted from CONAPO 2010

One of the overarching issues of the city of Culiacan is the limited use of public transport: 65 per cent of the population has private transportation and the rest uses public transport (IMPLAN Cln, 2006). Deficiencies in public transport provision and the fact that there are nearly two vehicles per household have forced urban development in Culiacan to be private vehicle oriented. This has had significant implications for urban development planning. The transport situation is one example of Culican‟s adoption of the national tendency towards neoliberalism policies and modernist planning outlined above, which have resulted in the urban sprawl and segregation noted in previous sections, with the consequent peripheralisation of the poor. Also following the trends discussed earlier at the national level, the city centre is privileged in terms of plan, design

119 and maintenance. This will be exemplified in the cases of Colonias 5 de Febrero and Centro in the next chapter.

Urban violence and insecurity in Sinaloa

The state of Sinaloa is internationally known for being the birthplace of one of the most powerful drug cartels in Mexico and in the world (Hernandez, 2013; (Grillo, 2013). The history of violence in Sinaloa and particularly in the state capital, Culiacan, can be traced to the origins of the Sinaloa cartel; yet once again, this is expressed mainly in terms of homicide rates. From its beginnings, the cartel set the precedent for what now is identified and accepted as „narco- cultura‟21. The cartel and its main leaders were consolidated following the expansion of opium and cocaine consumption in American society in the seventies, and the incorporation of the Mexican cartels in global trafficking networks. Sinaloa has witnessed some of the most alarming rises in violence in the country since 2006; based on official statistics of homicide rates, Sinaloa is one of the most violent states (SEGOB and SESNSP, 2010).

However, the region has relatively low levels of the other categories of crime as defined by the SESNSP 22 (Table 4.5). Even though official records of non-fatal violence are low, these manifestations of violence impact on citizens‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity, and authorities tend to pay less attention to recording figures accurately. Furthermore, this research has found that official data does not explain what is going on at community and neighbourhood levels; it provides generalisations of violence and crime at city and state levels that fail to capture how „low impact‟ violence affects citizens on a daily basis. In this sense,

21 The term ‘narco-cultura’ refers to the cultural impact of drug trafficking [narco-trafico]. Rather than an artistic or ‘cultural’ tendency, it is a ‘way of life’ related to a structure of values marked by violence and expressions of material aspiration. It is particularly associated with young males involved in criminal organisations. Narco-cultura behaviour is characterised by a tendency to violence, exacerbating [based on an exaggerated notion of] traditional values such as honour, courage and family. For example, extreme loyalty is rewarded and betrayal or attempts to leave the organisation are punished by physical violence and death. Another important characteristic is that of ‘power yearning’ in a compulsive quest for social status. It is said that those involved in drug trafficking seek to ‘live fast and die young’, lacking a long-term horizon since they can be murdered at any time (Cabañas, 2014). 22 These are crimes against: Life and physical integrity (homicide, assault); Personal liberty (kidnapping, trafficking of children); Freedom of and sexual security (sexual abuse, rape); Property (burglary, car theft, mugging); Family (domestic violence); Society (corruption of minors, drug dealing); and Others (trespassing, extortions) (SEGOB and SESNSP, 2013)

120 static classifications and quantitative measurements of violence do not grasp the impacts of violence, insecurity and crime on people‟s lives.

Sinaloa and Culiacan allows putting matters in perspective. In 2015 Sinaloa reported the highest regional homicide rate in Mexico, with 22.8 victims per 100,000 inhabitants, exceeding the national rate which was 15.25 victims in the same period (Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, 2015). The homicide rate in Culiacan city was nine per cent per 100,000 inhabitants higher than in Sinaloa state. According to Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano (2015) Culiacan presents levels greater than those registered at state level, with 41.2 per cent more homicides, 32.48 per cent more kidnappings and 62.41 per cent more violent robberies. Undeniably, homicide rates have a great impact on a citizen‟s perception of violence, but at community and neighbourhood level, there are other manifestations of violence (for example, domestic and economic violence) which also affect perceptions and undermine the wellbeing of residents.

Table 4.5 Comparison of Sinaloa (state) and National crimes.

Crimes against life Personal liberty Property

Year

Violent Violent Violent

National

National National

Robbery

Homicide Robbery

Homicide Homicide

of national of national of national of national

Intentional Intentional Intentional Kidnaping

Kidnapping Percentage

Percentage Percentage Percentage

2005 1 258 25 771 4.88 6 278 2.15 2 151 146 176 1.47

2006 1 407 27 552 5.09 9 733 1.22 2 002 146 508 1.36 2007 1 455 25 133 5.78 15 438 3.42 2 208 159 765 1.38 2008 1 844 27 759 6.64 12 907 1.32 2 909 175 333 1.65 2009 1 986 31 546 6.29 18 1 162 1.54 3 873 197 240 1.96 2010 2,863 35 713 7.94 17 1 222 1.39 8 174 229 076 3.56 2011 2 587 37 952 6.81 33 1 432 2.3 8 831 243 831 3.62 2012 2 066 38 227 5.4 32 1 418 2.25 7 183 222 408 3.22 2013 1 826 34 903 5.23 34 1 698 2 5 758 215 718 2.69

Source: Author, based on information by SEGOB and SESNSP (2005-2013).

Although it is understood that urban violence and insecurity have spread through the country variably, what is less known is how urban violence and insecurity within specific cities affect diverse neighbourhoods. This research seeks to shed light on how these processes of violence and insecurity occur at

121 community level; if what goes on in these neighbourhoods is an example of trends relating to city level urban space and violence issues; and how (and if) the physical location of colonias makes a difference in the impact and perceptions of violence and insecurity and what role urban planning plays in this relation.

In order to critically examine this last point, the next section analyses how planning processes occur in Sinaloa and the city of Culiacan, and what implications these might have for urban violence and insecurity issues.

Planning policies and socio-spatial responses to violence: state and city level

Sinaloa The reforms to the LGAH, mentioned above, transferred urban development planning responsibilities to states and municipalities. Depending on each state, a number of laws dictate planning matters. For Sinaloa, the Ley de Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de Sinaloa, establishes the foundation, management, regulation, conservation, improvement and growth of human settlements and population centres in Sinaloa‟s territory. Article 9 of this law establishes that the municipality, among other attributions, is empowered to formulate, adopt and administer local plans or programmes of urban development for population centres, and to evaluate and monitor the implementation thereof (Gobierno del Estado de Sinaloa, 2013).

The Urban Development Law of the state of Sinaloa was enacted shortly after the LGAH, and it aims to bring order to the development, establishment, maintenance, and improvement of urban population centres‟ growth in the state. Under this law, the preparation and publication of the First State Plan for Urban Development and the various other plans contained in the same law were commenced. The State Commission for the Urban Development of Populated Centers (CDCP, by its Spanish acronym) was the first organisation responsible for supporting the Municipalities of Sinaloa in matters of urban development and planning. It was later incorporated, in 1993, to the Sub-Ministry of Urban Development and Ecology, taking the place of the Ministry of Social Development, Environment and Fisheries of the State of Sinaloa.

122

Since the enactment of the Urban Development law three decades ago, several agencies have been in charge of urban development. The fact that the responsibilities and competences regarding urban development planning, at state level, are not structured under a single institution was one of the main critical issues mentioned by planning officials during interviews. As illustrated here, there are several government agencies involved directly or indirectly in planning for urban development and the actual construction of development-related projects in the state.

This structure underwent more changes in 2013. Since then, the Subdireccion de Desarrollo Urbano y Ecologia – dependent on the Secretaria de Desarrollo Social y Humano – changed to be under the Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Obras Publicas y Servicios. It is now called Undersecretary of Planning and Urban Development [Sub-Secretaria de Planeacion y Desarrollo Urbano], and according to the director of urban planning: “to this Secretaria, planning for urban development has been incorporated very recently” (interview Sebastian, 2015, emphasis added). It was also mentioned that the Secretaria‟s role in urban development planning is mostly to provide guidance to municipalities when requested, and to support them in generating their urban development plans. His statement is interesting in that it recognises that the Secretaria does not follow a particular or established vision of a city, rather they “imagine how a city should function”.

[we] operate at the request of municipalities, making a sort of diagnosis and [we] see what their [the municipalities‟] deficiencies are...Because most municipalities, do not have a department of urban development. Yet, the major cities impose our model of urban development. For example, the process for making a plan is always under the LGAH. Adding to this, there is a methodology, where analysis of the environmental, physical, and economic characteristics of the urban centre is conducted, to detect [cities‟] deficiencies. Then we come up with a target image where we establish, based on the analysis that we have of the city, a series of objectives and goals, which are derived from their needs and thus define what it is that we must do to have that city to function as we are imagining (interview Sebastian, 2015). The lack of clarity of their attributions is one of the main challenges faced by this institution at state level, since they operate “at the request of the

123 municipality”. Planning institutions are seen as consultancy entities and have little authority in deciding planning matters.

Additionally, they work, in the case of the sub-secretaria, under the Ministry of Public Works, which diminishes their role in urban development planning, a fact supported by the sub-secretaria‟s director:

A main limitation is the lack of independence. We now work under the Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Obras Publicas, we are dependent on them, thus a strength for us would be that we were [consolidated as] a state organisation with autonomy, as IMPLAN is at municipal level. This would imply that we become stronger [as a state organisation] and [we] had more autonomy, we could propose and decide, we would have a better budget, and our own legal area. We could ask for better benefits from different entities [at federal level] but already as a consolidated state organisation (interview Sebastian, 2015). The role of this Sub-secretaria has important implications for the configuration of urban space in Sinaloa. Firstly, the urban development planning agencies have a skewed vision on how cities should develop, based on how they imagine this, which is loosely based on the programmes they enact, and loosely following federal guidelines. Secondly, and most importantly, secretarias like this lack legislation and mechanisms to enable them to implement their proposed imaginaries of urban development in reality. The decision over how development planning is conducted usually occurs at municipal level which is subject to political will, and is mostly market-oriented, as will be illustrated below.

Culiacan Urban planning at municipal level is, officially, determined by IMPLAN in Culiacan through the urban development plan they develop for each political administration, which is conditioned by federal and state legislation. However, IMPLAN functions mainly as a technical and consultancy organisation. According to interviews conducted this organisation was created with the aim of

becoming the institution of the municipality of Culiacan responsible for the development, management and evaluation of plans, programmes and projects with integrated long-term vision and citizen participation; allowing a balanced, orderly, sustainable and inclusive territorial development that raises the

124

quality of life for all residents of Culiacan (interview Efren IMPLAN Cln, 2015). The limitations of IMPLAN‟s role are recognised by Efren, one of the coordinators:

We have managed to reduce much improvisation, since [urban development] planning criteria used to be at discretion of the current president and the [public] works that he wanted to make […] We make it a little more difficult for politicians seeking to impose works, they get a lot more profitability if those projects, these works they want to develop are thoroughly justified… you know that the politician loves cutting ribbons [inaugurating buildings] … At the end we offer a kind of catalogue of [public] works [that are] required and the decision-maker in this case is the politician, he determines which of them is going to be done and when […] there are other municipalities [in the state of Sinaloa] where planning is conducted according to the Mayor‟s mood […] we offer some arguments and technical vision which shows where and when a work [or] a project is necessary and from the technical point of view, we get to suggest and argue that some projects are more important than others (interview Efren IMPLAN Cln, 2015). IMPLAN‟s role is key but limited in its attributions by other institutions responsible for urban planning at municipal level, which are fragmented by sector and whose agendas are often conflicting, in keeping with this tendency in Mexico more generally (Connolly et al, 2007); for example, the Directorate of Public Works, Parks and Gardens, and the Urban Development and Ecology department.

Other limitations are the inconsistencies throughout federal and state level legal frameworks of urban planning and consequent lack of financial aid, for example:

At the federal level works are being conducted towards perfecting the [planning] legal framework, obviously the entire regulatory issue is perfectible but a constraint we have is that at state level, the legislation does not contemplate that existence of IMPLAN […] when that law was drafted, they assumed the existence of some institution that would be dedicated to planning… but the law does not stipulate IMPLAN, so no funds can be given to the institute, so [what] happens is that the budget is insufficient. The institute does not have the resources to do more projects and to strengthen our internal organisation (interview Efren IMPLAN Cln, 2015).

125

Another challenge IMPLAN faces is that politicians fail to grasp the time frames of urban planning and they rather conduct actions that can be of immediate impact and benefit for the population, instead of thinking of the long term, as stated in the previous fragment of the interview – „cutting ribbons‟. Overall, political actors prefer investing in areas which are visible and objectives that are easily and rapidly accomplished. Thus planning and public works in the city are based on pressing current necessities, as perceived by officials, with little consideration for future needs.

This was exposed by the manager of planning and urban image, at the municipality‟s Public Works and Services Management:

I think our main mechanisms to determine what works we will conduct are citizens‟ demands. They often ask for priority works, you see, the Mayor recently established a programme called Cabildo Abierto [Open Lobby] where anyone can go and express a need they have in terms of services or infrastructure. So, we do as people ask. We answer their needs, as you can imagine, we have so many demands, and people want things done immediately. We definitely need to establish a more precise way of determining what works will be conducted and when, because right now, all that we have are the demands of the inhabitants, that is what we follow (interview Enrique Public Works, 2015). This interview raises important issues for urban development planning in Culiacan. Firstly, the Gerencia Municipal de Obras y Servicios Públicos is a recently-created municipal agency which caused a restructuring of the area of municipal Public Works, where the figure of a city manager23 is implemented. This aims to conduct public works and services based on a scheme led by processes rather than areas or departments; it means that in the previous scheme, every department had its own agenda and public works were often overlapping, and generally disorganised. The objective of the city manager is to bring synergy into the processes in which Public Works is involved, and most importantly, to structure a single team to conduct projects in public works and maintenance.

23 The ‘city manager’ figure is a concept imported from the United States; broadly speaking it manages urban services and processes, and is meant to be impartial, without political influences. It has been equated with the role of an ‘ombudsman’. Their attributions are multiple and often encompass: supervision of all city departments and staff; preparation, monitoring, and execution of the city budget; technical advice to the council on overall governmental operations; and public relations, including meeting with citizens, citizen groups, businesses, and other stakeholders.

126

Secondly, political actors and planning institutions privilege actions in physical spaces that are more visible, such as the city centre. For this reason, even if some of the works conducted by Public Works are „urgent necessities‟, they happen in an isolated manner, and are not part of a wider city plan; while there is a specific plan for the development and intervention of the city centre. In this sense, the actions conducted in other less visible locations, such as the peripheries are erratic and sporadic. Thus, the „urgent‟ character of public works are guiding urban planning processes, and the way this institution conducts works reinforces the spontaneous nature that municipal administrations such as Culiacan have granted to planning, where they work based on demands.

IMPLAN and Public Works have been criticised for the way they conduct their works. A former member of IMPLAN‟s citizen council and professor at the Faculty of Architecture at the Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa previously involved in planning matters since 1970 in Culiacan, commented:

The aim [of IMPLAN] was precisely to try and organise urban development planning. To create an organisation that would handle these matters, yet they cannot get themselves organised and they are overrun by the matters of the city, they cannot keep up… and even if they did, they don‟t have the authority, Public Works takes over them …We are missing strategic planning. IMPLAN has a department with this name, but the name is the only strategic thing about it. Ultimately, IMPLAN is only a figure…You know there are many actors in the city: economic actors, political actors, social actors… they all intervene in the game of forces that leads the development of the city… Who conducts the development of our city? Well, this city‟s development was taken over by housing development, economic interests (interview Benito, 2015). In a similar fashion, a professor at the Faculty of Architecture and president of the Colegio de Arquitectos of Culiacan stressed the politicised and economic-driven nature of planning in the city, despite IMPLAN‟s efforts to plan in an orderly manner:

[…] I think there is some kind of urban planning. People [planning authorities] mean well, they have good intentions for doing things; the problem is implementation… Their main issue [IMPLAN‟s] is that those who are in power [politicians at municipal level] do not let them do their job, they always have other stakeholders, generally their friends, who tell them where

127

the city will grow, because they have land, they have self- interests involved, and this affects the whole city. They are the ones deciding on the development of Culiacan; and on top of it all, you have other levels [of authorities] trying to tell them where to go and what to do. I think that right now, it is not even planners driving urban development; it is the owners of the land… At IMPLAN, they have plans, they have programmes, but they cannot do anything more about it (interview Roberto, 2015). As implied by the interviews, IMPLAN‟s role in ordering urban development is, to say the least, restricted. On one hand, the Ley Estatal de Planeacion del Estado de Sinaloa does not recognise the figure of IMPLAN as such, it only stipulates that some institution must exist to conduct urban planning at municipal level. This worsens the already precarious situation of the institution: they lack autonomy – and thus, financial resources – and a clear outline of their attributions. Ultimately, this has implications for the urban development of Culiacan, where urban sprawl tends to be led by irregular settlements and fraccionamientos at the peripheries, as in other Mexican cities.

Establishing the relation between planning, urban space and violence is complex; the next section discusses one example of a socio-spatial response to violence, focused on public space improvement, implemented at municipal level as a part of a federal initiative, Programa Rescate de Espacios Publicos, by SEDESOL. Similar to national trends, responses to violence in Culiacan have been characterised by a strong focus on militarisation and police presence. The next example illustrates how responses to violence are implemented under certain assumptions at municipal level.

Socio-spatial responses to violence and insecurity in the peripheries: Programa Rescate de Espacios Publicos

The Rescue of Public Spaces Program or PREP [Programa Rescate de Espacios Publicos] was created in 2007 and operated until 2013, when it was transferred from SEDESOL to SEDATU at federal level. PREP aims to contribute to improving the quality of life and public safety, preferably of the population in conditions of marginalisation, by rescuing public spaces in cities and metropolitan areas (SEDATU, 2015). It also encourages the creation of a link between urban development and social development, by both preventing negative behaviours and

128 contexts, and fostering of positive traits in communities. In other words, it aims to reduce insecurity and violence by strengthening organisational capabilities, social participation, and community security (COLMEX, 2010a).

SEDATU, through PREP and local governments and the participation of civil society, implements in urban public spaces

comprehensive projects by developing physical works and development of social actions of benefit for communities, so that inhabitants have inclusive and safe urban spaces where they can conduct, sports, cultural and recreational activities, while promoting social interaction to foster the consolidation of communities, which are key elements to strengthen social cohesion and prevent risky behaviours (SEDATU, 2015), author translation). PREP foresees that communities are involved throughout the process in order to generate a community identity and social cohesion; however, the inclusion of inhabitants in the process has been insufficient to guarantee the positive outcomes of the programme. There are some conflicting views on the actual implementation of the programme. Karla, the director of the NGO Culiacan Participa, working in 5 de Febrero in Culiacan, suggested:

citizen participation [with SEDESOL] is tainted. They have implemented mechanisms which don‟t work…We have found that people are not interested, they want things to improve but they are not interested in being part of the change, because the process is cumbersome… Many committees have been formed here [Colonia 5 de Febrero in Culiacan], as is often a requirement from SEDESOL. But what happens is that, [the municipality] forms a committee, they take a picture, they sign forms and they become part of that committee. The municipality leaves, the programme ends, and so does everything else. People realise that by simulating they can get many benefits (interview Karla, 2015). Community participation is at the centre of each intervention; yet, the process of design and implementation, led by municipal authorities, is based on mere consultation of communities, in the best-case scenarios. Another limitation of PREP is that the design of actions and the development of public spaces are not considered from an integral and long term perspective. Interventions are based on the municipality‟s vision and these generally tend to privilege visible actions. This means that the maintenance of public spaces after the programme is

129 implemented becomes problematic, and in some instances, has significant impact on perceptions of insecurity. The necessity of greater community participation and empowering of spaces has been highlighted previously (Mexico Evalua, 2015), as it is key for the success and sustainability of interventions. This point will be returned to in several points in this thesis, particularly chapters 6 and 7.

4.3 Urban planning, and socio-spatial responses to violence in Aguascalientes

History and social change

In 1575 the Villa of Our Lady of the Assumption of Aguas Calientes was founded. In five centuries, Aguascalientes moved from being based on traditional barrios – town-like villas – to having the appearance of colonias and divisions. The development of the city was highly influenced by the proximity of the town to Zacatecas, because of its silver production, and the road to the capital of New Spain, now known as Mexico City (Figure 4.7). From 1648-1800 the population grew from 750 people to over 8,000 (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2011). The original urban core remained inscribed within its dimensions throughout the Viceroyalty of New Spain (1535-1821), and had a sustained growth rate, during Independence until the late nineteenth century, culminating during the Porfiriato (1876-1910), when Aguascalientes‟ autonomy as a territory of the Federation was established in May 23, 1835. It was consolidated as a state only in the Constitution of 1857 (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2011).

130

Figure 4.7 Location of Aguascalientes in Mexico.

Source: adapted from (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2014)

During the Mexican Revolution (1910-1924), the population of Aguascalientes totalled 35,000, but the city almost tripled its population during the first half of the twentieth century (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2014). In 2005, the State of Aguascalientes had a population of 1,065,416 inhabitants, of which 48 per cent were male and 52 per cent female, representing 1.03 per cent of the national population (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2011). Compared to the relative size of its economy in 2005, the State contributed 1.26 per cent to the country‟s gross domestic product (GDP). Between the years 2000 and 2005, the population of the state increased by 12.8 per cent while its economy grew at a rate of 16.9 per cent (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2011).

The Municipality of Aguascalientes is the capital of the state of the same name, and is located in the southern area (Figure 4.8). The urban layout of Aguascalientes stands out nationally for several reasons, namely: its concentric planning, good levels of road infrastructure, and for providing good municipal basic services in terms of urban infrastructure. A determinant trait is that the municipality is based in an area with limited water availability (IMPLAN Aguascalientes, 2007).

131

Figure 4.8 Municipal division of Aguascalientes

Source: adapted from H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes (2014)

In 2010, the Municipality of Aguascalientes registered 797,010 inhabitants, of whom 51.52 per cent were women and 48.48 per cent men. The municipality has a predominantly young population: almost half of the population are aged less than 25 years. However, this is changing; adults older than 60 years were 7.7 per cent of the total inhabitants. The Municipality of Aguascalientes has nine districts, of which five are concentrated within the City of Aguascalientes, while the remaining four are distributed in the rural area of the municipality (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2014).

The municipal population is mostly urban, 91.20 per cent; but is distributed unevenly throughout the municipality. In 2010, more than 56 per cent of all inhabitants lived in two delegaciones24, 36 per cent in Jesus Teran and 20 per cent in Jose Maria Morelos (H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2014). The unequal distribution of the population poses great challenges for urban development; the excessive growth and high concentrations of population

24 Delegaciones is a term used to refer the political-administrative divisions of a large municipality.

132 aggravate the tendency towards urban sprawl by further developing neighbourhoods and fraccionamientos on the outskirts of the city (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9 Urban growth of Aguascalientes municipality by decade.

Source: INEGI, 2010.

Aguascalientes is composed of three major roadways configured in rings, which have in some manner conditioned the urban development of the city. The rings have not limited urban sprawl in the city, yet they have provided certain development patterns. The first ring is considered to be the historical ring, since it contains the four barrios that composed the historic centre of Aguascalientes.

It is estimated that the municipality will reach one million inhabitants by 2025 (IMPLAN Ags, 2015) further challenging local authorities. Official estimates indicate that the population living under the poverty line are 242,510 inhabitants and 17,987 live in extreme poverty (Figure 4.10). The distribution of neighbourhoods living in poverty varies across the city. The delegaciones in the

133 east of the city recorded the highest percentage of households in poverty; that is where the highest rates of deficit in terms of infrastructure and services are. One critical issue is the lack of public and recreational spaces. This is the main reason why social policies addressing violence and crime and investment in urban infrastructure – Convive Feliz and Linea Verde – were implemented in this sector. Contrastingly, the city centre is experiencing growing spatial congestion, and reduced mobility due to a concentration of infrastructure, commercial, cultural, educational and governmental activities.

Figure 4.10 Poverty indicators in Aguascalientes (percentage by total municipal inhabitants).

Source: CONEVAL, 2012

Looking at CONAPO‟s marginalisation index, since 2000 the municipality has had a low level of marginalisation; a stable trend since 2010 (Figure 4.11).

134

Figure 4.11 Marginalisation index by AGEB in Metropolitan Area of Aguascalientes with case study areas indicated.

Source: CONAPO 2010

In 2013, 355,533 people were employed in the metropolitan area of Aguascalientes (44 per cent of the total population). The sector of the economy where most workers were employed was the tertiary, or services sector with 71.80 per cent of the working population; followed by the secondary or construction and manufacturing industry with 27.35 per cent. The primary or agricultural sector is underrepresented, with only 0.76 per cent. The growth of the working population between the fourth quarter of 2012 and the same period in 2013 was 4.5 per cent.

Just over 46 per cent of the working population has an income of up to 3 minimum wages25 -i.e. not poor by income, where almost half of the working population receives 6,030 pesos per month (about £300). In June 2012, Aguascalientes had an unemployment rate of 6.03 per cent; a year later (June 2013) the rate was down to 4.72 per cent. In the municipality of Aguascalientes, as in the rest of the country, the economically active population working in the

25 Minimum wage in 2014 in Mexico was $64.74 pesos, around £3 per day.

135 informal economy represents a large sector, often earning small and unstable wages and lacking social security.

Urban violence and insecurity in Aguascalientes

Aguascalientes has traditionally been perceived as a safe state and city. Yet the levels of violence in the state have increased slightly – a reflection of the generalised tendency in the country. This affected negatively citizens‟ perception of security, even though Aguascalientes is, statistically, a „safer‟ state, in comparison with Sinaloa. Intentional homicide rates in Aguascalientes city have decreased in the period from 2005-2013; however, violent robbery reports have increased, from 237 to 924 incidents (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Comparison of Aguascalientes and national selected crimes.

Crimes against life Personal liberty Property

Year

Violent Violent Violent

National

National National

Robbery

Homicide Robbery

Homicide Homicide

of national of national of national

Intentional Intentional Intentional Kidnaping

Percentage Percentage Kidnapping Percentage Percentage

2005 216 25 771 0.83 0 278 0 237 147 372 0.15 2006 192 27 552 0.69 1 733 0.13 300 146 508 0.19 2007 221 25 133 0.87 17 438 3.88 396 159 765 0.24 2008 248 27 759 0.89 22 907 2.42 744 175 333 0.41 2009 263 31 546 0.83 16 1 162 1.37 839 199 344 0.41 2010 273 35 713 0.76 10 1 222 0.81 675 232 033 0.28 2011 219 37 952 0.57 7 1 432 0.48 888 247 258 0.36 2012 190 38 227 0.49 0 1 418 0 1 038 225 333 0.45 2013 167 34 903 0.47 1 1 698 0.05 924 218 541 1.71

Source: Author, based on information by SEGOB and SESNSP (2006-2013).

On the ground, the „violence panorama‟ in Aguascalientes differs from what official statistics suggest; the central neighbourhood, considered a safe traditional barrio, has lower impact crimes and mostly administrative offences, compared with the types of crime and violence reported in peripheral settlements. This is further discussed in chapters 7 and 8. As in the previous section, analysing citizens‟ perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, and focusing on the way in which violence is dispersed within the two communities, throws light on the role

136 of planning. In this sense, the ways in which planning processes occur in Aguascalientes municipal and state level are discussed below.

Planning policies and socio-spatial responses to violence at state and city level

Aguascalientes (State) The planning system in Aguascalientes appears to be more sophisticated than Culiacan. As suggested by the president of the Colegio de Urbanistas of Aguascalientes, urban development planning in Aguascalientes has been seen as an example of good practice, since the publication of the Ley General de Planeacion del Estado de Aguascalientes in 1957 (interview Nadia, 2015). This was followed by the Ley de Planeacion y Urbanizacion in 1970, six years before the publication of the LGAH at federal level. In 1978, two years after the enactment of the LGAH – which worked as a base for the National Plan of Development in 1978 – Aguascalientes created the Director Plan, which gave the state the reputation of having an innovative urban planning system (interview Nadia, 2015).

Aguascalientes also has a well-ordered organisational structure regarding planning and zoning. At state level, urban development planning is divided between two organisations: State Ministry of Urban Management and Planning and State Coordination of Planning and Projects (Secretaria Estatal de Gestion y Ordenamiento Urbano y Territorial and Coordinacion Estatal de Planeacion y Projectos). The SEGOUT [by its Spanish acronym] was previously the Secretaria de Planeacion y Desarrollo Regional, but its name changed under the current political administration, resulting in its division into two organisations. SEGOUT is in charge of “ordering land uses and [urban] planning at the state level, as well as urban development management which is, in practice, integration and authorisation of fraccionamientos” (interview Cristian, 2015). A key point is that at state level, just as with Sinaloa, urban development planning is viewed and interpreted by planning officials as management. of housing projects in practice.

Two important innovations in Aguascalientes have been the enactment of the „Codigo Urbano‟ by IMPLAN at municipal level, and the Programa de Reordenamiento Ecologico y Estatal, conducted by SEGOUT, at state level. The 137

Codigo Urbano is a law decreed in 2007 that aims to stimulate Aguascalientes cities‟ urban development in an ordered way, functioning at municipal level as a baseline for the amalgamation of all urban development planning legislation, plans and programmes. The role of the Codigo Urbano will be discussed further below. The Programa de Reordenamiento Ecologico y Estatal, on the other hand, aims to work as the guiding instrument of the state‟s planning system. As stated by Cristian: “[the] instrument is the key to implementing any other instrument, it works as a base because it is a very broad instrument, from a sectorial point of view and as integrated urban development planning” (interview Cristian, 2015). Additionally, all of the other planning system instruments are derived from this programme, namely the Programa Estatal de Desarrollo Urbano and the Programa de Zona Conurbada.

The following interview fragment elucidated an issue faced by state planning officials: the scarcity of instruments for urban development programmes at lower scales of implementation, that is, at community and neighbourhood level. This is a reflection of a major problem that research respondents from state and municipal levels identify (discussed further below), namely the lack of financial resources to draft and, ultimately, implement plans:

There have been state administrations, like the previous one [2010-2013], where there were enough resources for us [SEGOUT] to contract staff and draft instruments according to state necessities; but with this administration there have been very scarce resources, we have managed to draft only state programmes of urban development, urban equipment and conurbations, but this implies that the municipalities get less resources, because we are recipients of more [resources] for making the programmes. What this means is that at the lower the level, the worse the resource and this results in failure of one, drafting the plan, and two, implementation at lower levels (interview Cristian, 2015). It is important to highlight that the Secretaria‟s attributions are well defined. The Secretaria introduced the figure of a Comision Estatal de Planeacion.

The attributions of the Secretaria and the role of this Comision in regulating urban development planning was mentioned during the interview:

138

The work we conduct is to align all those instruments [municipal programmes] with the state ones, to avoid the issue of downscaling and then plans resulting incompatible… We have some autonomy, legally or rather in a juridical manner, because we have all the capability, as the guiding organisation at state level, and although it sometimes may feel like we impose on the municipalities, we guide the territorial ordering, here [in SEGOUT] and we attempt to coordinate the works of the municipalities […] We have established the role of an urbanism coordinator, which was very criticised since it regulates a role of the municipality, that of granting land use compatibility. Now every decision of land granting over 5,000 square metres comes to SEGOUT to this coordinator and we must make sure that this is coherent and sticks to what the law says. If this is not the case, the ruling is denied. We also have a Comision de Planeacion, this commission authorises the new developments, which has given us a lot of coherence and approachability, because all of the proposals we get are analysed out in the air [publicly and openly], to try and avoid corruption in granting permission to build (interview Cristian, 2015). Certain advantages of this Comision Estatal de Planeacion were referred to by members of the Colegio de Urbanistas de Aguascalientes:

The Comision Estatal de Planeacion, was created as early as 1943, when a decree was made for improving planning and urbanisation in Aguascalientes, this was something new for the whole country, there are no other organisations of this nature in Mexico; it is still working and we have been a part of it at several points, they rely on our advice in a manner. The director of Colegio de Urbanistas is a permanent member. The role of this organ is, you see, if you want to build a housing development in Mexico, it is the municipality who grants permission; this way is easier to fall into corruption. So, the Comision in Aguascalientes is the one analysing and granting new [housing] development permissions. It is harder to get permission here in Aguascalientes, which is actually a good thing, you have to follow a process and fulfil requirements (interview Nadia, 2015). As stated by the president of the Colegio de Urbanistas, this Comision is one of the strengths of urban planning in Aguascalientes and it is one of a kind in the context of Mexico. It is acknowledged as having an “active role in urban planning [at state level]” (interview Nadia, 2015).

139

Among the limitations of urban planning in Aguascalientes, and similar to the case of Sinaloa, a great constraint, as identified by SEGOUT, is lack of financial resources. Our main limitation is financial resource; this limits our ability to fulfil our needs of human resources. We are understaffed due to a very limited budget. If we had what we needed, we would be able to elaborate all of the [urban planning] instruments as they should be, with their appropriate methodologies, and we wouldn‟t have to wait for the municipalities to make them. And the municipalities don‟t make them [the instruments] because they do not have the money either. We are stuck dealing with technical and administrative issues, we have to attend meetings, committees, which leaves very little time to actually plan (interview Cristian, 2015). The interpretation of federal level planning law in Aguascalientes has been reflected only in the plans and programmes drafted; yet there have been some difficulties with translating this into reality, both in terms of implementation and of enabling relevant institutions to implement.

The president of Colegio de Urbanistas remarked:

One of the main issues of planning [at state level] is that, we have some knowledge on how to formulate, a little on how to facilitate, and very little to nothing on how to implement, control and evaluate. That is all the Secretaria knows how to do: to write plans and programmes... [This happens] not only in Aguascalientes, but this is visible throughout the country (interview Nadia, 2015). Ultimately, Aguascalientes shows evidence of some innovative instruments in place, such as the figure of the Urbanism Coordinator at state level and the Comision Estatal de Planeacion. Additionally, urban planning practice also shows that more collaboration between different institutes responsible for planning urban development at state and municipal levels has been achieved, as will be discussed in the next section.

Aguascalientes (Municipality) There are several milestones reached in consolidating a tradition of urban planning in the city of Aguascalientes. The institutionalised planning tradition started in 1943, when planning was established as in the public interest (interview Nadia, 2015). Five years later, the first Master Plan of the City was elaborated by

140

Architect Carlos Contreras. In 1976 the LGAH recommended that all Mexican states develop urban development programmes at the state and municipal level. In the city of Aguascalientes this occurred two years later. The State Programme for Urban Development and the Municipal Program for Urban Development were approved by government decree.

The Master Plan of the City was revised in 1994. This intervention featured the participation of the newly created Department of Urban Development and Ecology, by appointment of the Mayoralty. Further revision followed during the mid-90s, when the municipality proposed the introduction of a planning model that includes citizen participation as a fundamental element. Moving forward, in 2001, the Urban Development Programme of the City of Aguascalientes 2000-2020 was published, where IMPLAN or the Municipal Planning Institute participated for the first time in urban planning tasks.

IMPLAN [Municipal Institute for Planning] is central to the city‟s urban development planning, and is one of the most consolidated in the country. Aguascalientes‟ IMPLAN has autonomy and influence in the decisions of the town hall regarding urban planning. IMPLAN conducts its activities in conjunction with other governmental entities. From interviews it became evident that synergy and communication between urban planning offices is the norm in Aguascalientes. Part of this synergy is due to a legislative tool that has been implemented in the city: the Codigo Urbano [Urban Code].

The Urban Code is a bylaw enacted at the municipal level which encompasses most – if not all – legislation in the municipality regarding planning, including state and federal levels. The Urban Code works as a transversal tool. Its main benefit relies on the fact that, it has allowed planning agencies to achieve continuity on normative planning matters through several political administrations. In words of IMPLAN‟s head of planning: “We work with a municipal system of strategic planning, which is nested in the municipal Urban Code, and it makes it mandatory for municipal offices, to consider it on their projects, adhering to these long-term projects and vision we propose” (interview Mauricio, 2015).

The importance of the Code is also recognised at state level, by SEGOUT:

141

We have a juridical instrument that has been very important for the past 20 years, since it was enacted: the Urban Code. This is a piece of legislation that common people, planners, builders and all citizens are familiar with. It recently underwent some changes and we are trying to establish it as Code of Territorial Order, to add some attributions (interview Cristian, 2015). This Code is one of the factors that has allowed Aguascalientes to maintain its position as a national reference point regarding urban planning. Another important trait of the planning system, at municipal level, has been the implementation of participatory planning mechanisms in Aguascalientes. Not only are consultation mechanisms included when plans and programmes are drafted (as in the case of the new Urban Development Plan 2020-2040, published in 2015) but participation is also actively encouraged, as IMPLAN has a department of Participatory Planning. The head of the participatory planning area in IMPLAN commented on the implications:

We work under the department of territorial systematisation and integral programmes, and we follow the municipal strategic planning system, which aims to integrate people into the decision-making processes using effective planning mechanisms; we work under a model of participatory planning. This implies working face-to-face with community members and implementing participatory methodologies to include them in the planning process. For example, we conduct [transect] walks, workshops, and participatory community assessments on site, this is practically the model that we are using to intervene within the programme Acciones por tu Colonia and we perform diagnostics. Workshops are conducted through the organised groups of action, as we call them and these comprise neighbours and civil society, they have a president or leader, a secretary, a treasurer and 12 people representing different agencies of the municipality; they are inactive members as they are just a direct contact with the office they represent, but obviously they do not have vote on the planning of the community (interview Edgar, 2015) The Participatory Planning division of IMPLAN has managed to establish a platform of communication between citizens and the municipal government. The institute is a recipient of citizens‟ demands and, most importantly, plans in conjunction with communities through participatory planning. This scheme generated the emergence of the Acciones por tu Colonia programme, which aims at undertaking strategic actions necessary for the orderly development of

142 colonias, based on the consultation and participation of their inhabitants. The programme was adapted and designed for the city by IMPLAN, but it is now being conducted by SEDESOL.

This section has broadly shown how planning processes occur in the state of Aguascalientes and the municipality of the same name. Some of the issues faced by planning actors and institutions do not seem to differ largely from those of Culiacan and Sinaloa; however, some characteristics of the planning processes in Aguascalientes have helped consolidate them as nationally referenced practices of urban land management and urban development planning. Comparing planning institutions, mechanisms, regulations and plans and programmes at state and municipal level aids in identifying if any particular instruments have a more notable (positive or negative) effect in how cities and urban space are conceived and planned for from an official perspective. These similarities and differences between cities and states are elaborated upon in the next section.

Socio-spatial responses to violence and insecurity in the peripheries: the case of Convive Feliz Convive Feliz is a programme of „social conviviality and citizen security‟, which started in the municipality of Aguascalientes in 2011 (Reyes and Lazos, 2013). It is a social public policy for the prevention of violence and crime based on an intense interaction and participation of communities, with a relevant investment on recreational urban infrastructure (Reyes and Lazos, 2013). Convive Feliz sought to establish a public policy where the municipality coordinated all of its departments towards a unified objective: citizen co-participation (interview Convive Feliz, 2015). The programme worked under a scheme that pursued citizen participation to achieve citizen security. One of the coordinators of Convive Feliz commented:

we wanted to build community, to foster social cohesion and to end with the distrust and alienation inhabitants have towards authorities […] we came to their colonias, we saw their need on the ground and we also experienced people‟s behaviour… we wanted to bring the municipality to the colonias […] we worked under a methodology called „social and urban acupuncture‟, like medicinal acupuncture, where you target the problematic areas in order to start resolving everything else. This is what Linea Verde aims to do; not only did we provide a much needed green

143

area, but we try to address other issues of these communities […] (interview Convive Feliz, 2015) Linea Verde is a 12-square kilometre public area, which encompasses recreational and sports facilities. For some authors (Reyes and Lazos, 2013), Linea Verde is the materialisation of Convive Feliz. It is a government initiative that seeks to build citizens‟ skills while addressing the causes of insecurity, not only the effects of violence in the area. The provision of this type of infrastructure made a clear difference in the configuration of the physical space Los Pericos, as will be shown in chapter 8, although its effects on the reduction and prevention of violence and insecurity in the area are contested.

The idea of Convive Feliz is based on concepts such as CPTED (Cozens, 2011; Schneider and Kitchen, 2007), discussed in chapter 2; citizen security; and „social and architectural acupuncture‟. This has allowed the programme to conduct a thorough diagnosis and justification for the actions they developed. One of the criticisms made about Convive Feliz by municipal officials was that the programme is „too ambitious‟, since it aimed at positively impacting up to 100 colonias (interview Convive Feliz, 2015). Arguably, the programme has been quite successful; community members of Los Pericos report significant advantages in terms of the urban spaces, which improved considerably after Linea Verde was completed.

The main limitation the programme has suffered is, as in the case of many other initiatives in Mexico, the lack of continuity. Linea Verde was successfully built during the 2011-2013 municipal administration. However, the management of the numerous facilities that were provided throughout Linea Verde went from the municipal government to being managed by a civil society association. In this sense, another great limitation of the programme, and Linea Verde, is that while the public works were completed successfully – the construction of Linea Verde and other infrastructure – the process of community empowerment and appropriation of the spaces was flawed, and ultimately interrupted. This has meant that the spaces, even though they are in good condition, have been appropriated by criminals, such as young gangs, as explored in chapter 7.

144

4.4 Comparison of two planning systems

This chapter introduced the context of the two city case studies, Culiacan and Aguascalientes. It showed critical urban issues in two Mexican cities with a complex planning system – composed of intricate laws, regulations and plans, and programmes – which aims to respond to issues at federal, state and municipal levels. The chapter critically examined how planning processes are conducted at federal, state and municipal levels. Although some differences emerged at state and municipal level, some similarities about the issues different agencies face emerged, namely: financial restrictions, lack of instruments and mechanisms for implementation of plans at community and street level, lack of continuity (mostly in municipal administrations), and the continual use of planning as a political tool. As discussed here, urban development planning faces multiple issues. These limitations in the way planning is conducted help to explain the deficiencies underpinning how urban space is configured, which might be a breeding ground for the proliferation of other urban issues, namely, violence and insecurity (Davis, 2012).

Thus, planning processes in Mexico seem disjointed given the lack of mechanisms to implement plans and programmes. Culiacan illustrates how planning can be hijacked by politicians and, as a result, planning is mostly conceived as a political tool used by politicians to „develop‟ or benefit certain areas chosen for a specific purpose – eg, a friend might be the owner of land to be developed, or providing infrastructure or urban equipment might work as a leverage for getting votes or political support from a community, etc.

The planning processes in Aguascalientes show some strength due to particularities of organisation and regulation. For example, the Codigo Urbano, which aims to amalgamate planning regulations and legislation at different levels; and two planning actors, the Urbanism Coordinator, and the Comision Estatal de Planeacion and Colegio de Urbanistas which „regulate‟ in a manner the processes of urban development. Additionally, the Participatory Planning division of IMPLAN appears to be a key attribute at the municipal level, as citizens‟ participation in planning matters is actively encouraged. The following table (Table 4.7) summarises differences at state and municipal level.

145

Table 4.7 Planning differences, Culiacan and Aguascalientes Aguascalientes Sinaloa

Organisation · SEGOUT · Desarrollo Urbano · Comision Estatal de State Planeacion · Urbanism Coordinator Municipal · IMPLAN · IMPLAN

· Financial resources · Financial resources

·Lack of · Lack of autonomy professionalisation · Many departments · Normative oriented involved · Housing provision- Main · Lack of autonomy limitations oriented · Deficiencies in implementation · Normative oriented (focused on formulating plans and programmes) · Codigo Urbano (IMPLAN) · Urbanism Coordinator

· Programa de Reordenamiento Strengths Ecologico y Estatal • City Manager (Comision Estatal de Planeacion and Colegio de Urbanistas)

· Participatory Planning division

Source author, 2016

4.5 Conclusions

In Mexico, there is a disjunction regarding what planning should be and what planners should do; as shown in this chapter, in the view of officials, planners draft plans and programmes. As put by Friedman (1998:250) “One can always get a statistician to make yet another population forecast or an architect to design street furniture, and there are plenty of economists and engineers to run feasibility studies”. But planners, those in charge of overseeing the production of urban space, “should have a grounding in knowledge about the socio-spatial

146 processes that, in interaction with each other, produce the urban habitat [urban space]” (Friedmann, 1998:251). The reality of socio-spatial processes – such as violence and insecurity, and many other issues – and their impact on urban space, seems to be disregarded by planning officials.

This chapter also shows that urban planning in Mexico is subject to externalities that limit its role in development planning. Rather, it has been conceptualised as a political tool focused on technical and policy approaches, scarcely linked to the process of decision-making over the urban realm of cities. Planning efforts have been directed almost exclusively to strengthening legal aspects with the enactment of laws and development of plans, rather than consolidating the theoretical, methodological and practical basis for urban planning. Thus it becomes a subordinated instrument to the measures implemented from economic and social development policies. In other words, development planning has been conceived as a means rather than an end in itself (Chaparro, 2009).

As recognised in chapters 1 and 2, urban violence and insecurity are increasingly more ubiquitous, and less and less spatially restricted (Moser and McIlwaine, 2014). For this reason, dealing with everyday violence is an added complexity that should be incorporated into planning processes, particularly if these are viewed as urban space production processes. Planning processes determine how urban space is configured: which areas are connected and provided with services, as well as „the kinds of people and goods that can and should circulate easily, and which should stay put, and who can and should be integrated within the city, and who should be left outside of it‟ (Rodgers and O‟Neil, 2012:402). Planners, particularly in Mexico, need to acknowledge that, as much as planning can be a response to violence, it can potentially be a cause, as certain forms of structural violence often ﬂow through planning processes and infrastructural forms; and that urban violence is experienced not only in physical terms (Rodgers and O‟Neill, 2012). Analysing the role of planning in the interaction between urban space and perceptions of urban violence offers a perspective in support of re-thinking planning and physical space-based violence reduction strategies.

147

Similarly, the limitations of violence prevention strategies based on the built environment have been illustrated. Three initiatives targeting situational characteristics of physical urban space in order to reduce opportunities for violence and insecurity were analysed; these achieved marginal results in preventing violence and improving security. The main limitation of these initiatives is that these have not been conducted from a planning perspective; these rather focus on a social development policy, oriented at improving the built environment, in the best case scenarios. The potential of this type of intervention lies with the fact that public space rehabilitation would benefit from being part of an integral planning policy to reduce violence, rather than simply being isolated interventions that lack clearly defined criteria for selection and justification. If these programmes were to be implemented as a part of a planning strategy, violence reduction and prevention could be embedded in planning legislation as a policy, rather than an isolated intervention or action.

As will be shown in the following two chapters, urban development planning has the potential to alter and mediate the perceptions and experiences of insecurity and violence in urban spaces. This chapter has highlighted the centrality of planning processes in the configuration of urban space, but also the present challenges and issues faced by planning officials. The previous chapters stressed the necessity of an on-the-ground understanding of the complexity of violence and insecurity, since these issues might affect differently diverse neighbourhoods within a city and are key to the design and implementation of adequate responses to violence. This could be achieved if planning processes incorporated communities‟ perceptions and experiences of insecurity, as well as their conceptions and uses of urban space. This latter point speaks to one of the salient issues that arise in chapters 6 and 7: there seems to be a „gap‟ between the ways that urban space is officially planned, including physical space responses to violence, and citizens‟ views and experiences of lived urban space. Following Lefebvre‟s, (1991, 1996) view that urban space is socially produced and that social relations and people‟s conceptions of space are integral to it, the next two chapters explore the conceptions citizens have of space, and perceptions of insecurity, in relation to the appearance of urban violence.

148

CHAPTER 5 Urban space in local communities in Culiacan and Aguascalientes

Just as space and meaning are defined and redefined by use, the physical aspects of a community reflect how life is lived within it (Perlman, 2010: 121)

Introduction

A long tradition in criminology, urban and sociological studies has suggested that the conditions of the urban space might have a negative or positive influence on the incidence of violence and perceptions of insecurity, as discussed in Chapter 2. In order to explore those issues in the four case-study communities, this chapter introduces some of the main characteristics of the areas under study, and their residents. In a way, the chapter sets the scene for a detailed introduction and analysis of residents‟perceptions. Understanding the situation of communities and looking beyond the physical characteristics of the areas, allows an exploration of the main themes of the thesis, namely the relation between urban space and violence, citizens‟ perceptions of insecurity, and the role of planning processes.

As suggested by Perlman (2010) in the citation above, the physical aspects of a community reflect how life is lived within it, and this includes, as the next three analytical chapters will show, how violence and insecurity affect urban space. The previous chapter introduced the urban context at national, state and city level, focusing on introducing socio-economic and demographic characteristics, as well as urban issues and planning processes. This chapter focuses on introducing the four communities under study.

The chapter is composed of two parts: the first part presents the two communities studied in Culiacan: a peripheral settlement in section 5.1 and an inner-city neighbourhood in section 5.2. Likewise, in the second half of the chapter, sections 5.3 and 5.4 introduce the peripheral and central communities studied in Aguascalientes. Lastly, section 5.5 presents conclusions to the chapter, pointing out at the ways in which certain characteristics of urban space might generate problematic areas which in turn enhance feelings of insecurity in the communities.

149

5.1 A peripheral settlement in Culiacan: 5 de Febrero

This section characterises the physical environment of Colonia 5 de Febrero. It also provides a brief background to its foundation, and physical infrastructure and services in the area. Figure 5.1 shows the location of the two community case studies in Culiacan.

Figure 5.1 Location of Colonia 5 de Febrero and Colonia Centro in Culiacan.

Source: based on Google Maps, 2015.

Colonia 5 de Febrero was founded by a squatter movement between 1985 and 1987, when permission was granted to the squatters by the municipality to occupy the land and land tenure was partially legalised. During the first seven years, and after constant negotiations with the municipality, basic services were gradually introduced in the settlement. Since its foundation, the community leaders have been self-appointed candidates. A longstanding community member recounts:

The first leaders chosen by the neighbours were a married couple, Emeterio y Maria, who shortly after the legalisation of

150

the Colonia had to leave. After that, a man named Alejandro was named president and he lasted for a couple of years; he was very active and helped to obtain basic services. After him, Sra Oralia was named president, and even though she lasted for a very long time, she did very little (interview Diana26 2015). Hence, it seems that after basic services were provided, very little has improved. Generally, neighbours complain about deficiencies in infrastructure and services, namely lack of pavement and bus services. The community leader at the time of the research, Jose, points out that this might be due to people‟s lack of involvement and participation in community matters:

People want everything done and given easily. They do not want to know if we have to lobby, or negotiate with the authorities to solve problems or make demands; if they don‟t see something done right away, they‟ll start saying „that community president has done nothing‟ or he only likes to be known as president‟ (interview Jose, 2015) The irregular (i.e. not planned and irregular land tenure) foundation of the colonia and its location at the periphery of the city has conditioned and characterised its socio-economic development. The general conditions of the colonia are outlined in the next three sections, in order to understand how the colonia has reached its current state, and to explore the physical aspects of the built environment.

General characteristics of the population Colonia 5 de Febrero is located in the western outskirts of the city of Culiacan, Sinaloa. In 2010 it had approximately 3,978 inhabitants, of whom 50.1 per cent were female and 49.9 per cent male (IMPLAN Culiacan, 2010a) (Figure 5.2). The colonia consists of some 1,000 plots of land, and around the same number of houses, with an approximate density of three to five people per house. Surveys conducted in the area indicate that the largest age group was 48 or above27.

26 All of the interviewees’ names have been changed to pseudonyms in order to protect their anonymity. 27 As discussed in chapter 3 (methodology), the sample does not attempt to be statistically representative; rather, it offers a characterisation of the respondents’ age and gender

151

Figure 5.2 Age and gender of respondents sample in Colonia 5 de Febrero.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

According to the survey conducted in the area, 54.8 per cent of the households in 5 de Febrero have monthly incomes below $4,000 pesos (about £200 at the time of fieldwork28) (Figure 5.3). However, the president of the colonia commented that community members might feel uncomfortable talking about their income, since they feel that if „the wrong person‟ gains knowledge of how much they earn they may be a target of assault or robbery.

28 The exchange rate during fieldwork was of £1 equal to about $20 Mexican pesos

152

Figure 5.3 Income, monthly average in Mexican Pesos, 5 de Febrero.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

The majority of the respondents‟ occupations were housewives, services, and commerce (mostly informal)(Figure 5.4). Most of the inhabitants work outside the colonia. The majority of the population in the area has completed either elementary school or high school education (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.4 Occupation of inhabitants in colonia 5 de Febrero,

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

153

Figure 5.5 Education levels in colonia 5 de Febrero.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Built environment and planning The colonia is physically separated from other neighbourhoods – and the rest of the city of Culiacan – by a stream („Arroyo 2‟), which also forms the limits of 5 de Febrero. The streets and avenues that define the limits of 5 de Febrero can be seen in Figure 5.6. To access the colonia, there are two bridges for vehicles and pedestrians (Photo 5.1), so the neighbourhood is physically bounded by the stream and can only be accessed across these bridges. This is identified by the neighbours as very problematic.

154

Figure 5.6 Colonia limits, main streets and roads in 5 de Febrero.

Limits of colonia 5 de Febrero

North

„Arroyo 2‟

Juan de la Cabada Street

Access to community through Paula Moreno

Source: author, based on Google Maps, 2015.

The stream is used as an illegal waste dump, and as a result, the surrounding area is in a deplorable condition, as the water is stagnant and highly polluted. This area has been identified by inhabitants as a source of infection, because the stream incubates dengue fever mosquitos and other diseases. In another area of the colonia, more precisely in Justicia Street, there is also illegal dumping in what becomes a stream when it rains.

Photo 5.1 View of the stream and the bridge to access the colonia

Source: author, 2015

Juan de la Cabada street runs through the colonia from north to south and contains important infrastructure, such as the only elementary school of the sector

155

(Figure 5.7). The second main road is Paula Moreno. This is the only paved road in the community and one of the access routes over a bridge. From this entrance and bridge the bus route 5 de Febrero-Centro accesses the colonia. On this street there are several established businesses and the DIF Centro de Desarrollo Comunitario of the municipality (discussed further below).

Figure 5.7 Community 5 de Febrero with infrastructure, access, limits and the ‘invasiones’ area indicated

Source: author, based on Google Maps, 2015

The analysis of the data collected during fieldwork for this research shows that some of the main issues identified by inhabitants regarding the built environment of colonia 5 de Febrero are: lack of pavements, deficiencies in public lighting, and accessibility and connectivity. This last point brings about a particular problem: the colonia has limited access due to Arroyo 2. Thus, connection to surrounding colonias is limited to a bridge spanning the stream on one side of the neighbourhood. The other access route is through the only paved street. This street connects the community with the immediate neighbouring colonia La Amistad. The issues of connectivity in 5 de Febrero were mentioned by the director of a non-governmental organisation working in the sector, Culiacan Participa:

156

I believe one of the main issues, I don‟t know how to call it … it would be the access and how to connect. Yes, the colonia is very secluded due to the stream, which is not paved and it also causes numerous problems. Even to access the colonia is tricky, next to the colonia there is a new development [fraccionamiento called Villa del Real], can you believe that the developer decided to build a wall surrounding the development to actually physically separate it from 5 de Febrero? There is no access, there is only a wall, and he decided not to connect the streets (interview with Culiacan Participa, 2015). The perception of the director of the NGO provides a reasonable idea of the disorganised planning process that took place in the Colonia and its surrounding areas. The case of 5 de Febrero illustrates the relative control the city had over the irregular occupation of land, and how inhabitants expanded the limits of the city, legally recognising these colonias and providing for basic services after a few years of being founded. Also, regular housing developments or fraccionamientos push the physical limits of the city and the municipality allows and even incentivises developers to do so with many liberties. Adding to this, fraccionamientos are developed with little regard to their surrounding areas; for example, the access to 5 de Febrero was curtailed and the neighbourhood was physically separated from Villa del Real, with a bordering wall constructed in 2012.

Irregular settlements: the newly squatted area Many residents in 5 de Febrero are preoccupied by the existence of a newly-squatted area on the outskirts of the neighbourhood The invaded area adjacent to 5 de Febrero began to be occupied in 2012. The land is at the very limits to the city, where services and infrastructure are still precarious and inhabitants do not have formal access to basic services (Figure 5.7 and Photo 5.2). Additionally, it is presumed by 5 de Febrero inhabitants that some houses in the squatter area are used for drug trafficking.

Residents said that there are people watching over the area, mostly young men in their twenties. They illegally obtain electric power from the utility poles; they access water through stored water tanks. There are no green areas, according to neighbours the land belongs to the municipality, but the area was mechanically deforested and levelled by its current residents. This situation resulted in residents

157 of the colonia 5 de Febrero registering their dissatisfaction with a manifestation in state Congress in 2012. Members of the community argue that:

It‟s some of the people from the „invasion‟ that come and rob at our houses by night, or they assault young girls when they come back from school. They are the ones making us feel insecure (interview Diana, 2015).

Photo 5.2 View of the squatter settlement.

Source: author, 2015

The invasion is of particular interest as it illustrates some of the critical issues area arises, such as deliberate appropriation of an unused, unserviced and relatively isolated piece of land at the edge of a peripheral neighbourhood and how it might have enabled criminal activities to take place here, affecting the wider area (5 de Febrero), and how these areas interact with and affect 5 de Febrero residents‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity. This will be further explored in chapter 6.

Regarding public services in this area, a salient issue is the lack of public lighting; near the „invasion‟, streets are completely dark. Streets running north to south of the colonia also completely lack the service, such as Luis de la Mora street. Although the community leader has attempted to solve the issue, he received no answer from the municipality; in support of his efforts, he has made an inventory of the streetlights in the area (Figure 5.8). One of the provisional solutions has been that a few neighbours are cooperating by fitting personal house lights.

158

Figure 5.8 Map showing location of street lamps in Luis de la Mora street

Source: Elaborated and provided by Jose, 2015

Inhabitants of 5 de Febrero have formal access to regular and good quality water services (Fieldwork notes, 2015). The water company provider is Culiacan Water and Sewerage Board (JAPAC) [Junta de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado de Culiacan]. The invasion, or squatter area, however, lacks potable water; inhabitants from the „invasions‟ access water by storing water from trucks with water tanks which they pay for (interview with Juan, 2015).

As in many Mexican communities, in 5 de Febrero, the lack of or inefficient public transport is a recurrent issue for citizens (fieldwork notes, 2015). Only one public transport route connects the colonia with the city centre (Photo 5.3). This transport is part of a state grant permit where all the bus routes in the city have permits although they are are managed privately. Community members complained about the unpredictability and precariousness of the service. The residents complained that young people called „garbanzos‟, who often act as „assistants‟ to the drivers, are rude to bus users.

159

Photo 5.3 5 de Febrero-Centro bus route leaving the Colonia through the only paved street and access route, Paula Moreno.

Source: author, 2015

Infrastructure in the area is limited and deficient. The only health infrastructure are private doctor‟s offices within pharmacies, such as „Farmacias Similares‟, where medical consultation is about $20-30 pesos (£1-£1.50 approximately). These facilities are located on the corner of Paula Moreno and Juan Rulfo Street, and have been subject to armed robbery on several occasions. There is also a Centre for Integral Family Development [Centro de Desarrollo Integral de la Familia, DIF] which is considered a public space. These facilities are part of the municipal Desarrollo Integral de la Familia (DIF) system29. In 5 de Febrero, DIF facilities consist of small installations with several community services such as a dental clinic, and psychology unit.

The Centro Especializado en Atención a Víctimas de Violencia (CESAVVI) [Specialised Centre for Victims of Domestic Violence], provides multi-disciplinary services for free, such as social work consultation, medical and psychological attention, legal advice, and several training courses such as arts and crafts, lectures, workshops and conferences for the families of victims of violence.

29 DIF was created at national level as early as 1919 as Asociación Nacional de Protección a la Infancia or National Association for Child Protection, whose main objective was the distribution of school breakfasts. This was later transformed into an institution that, from 1977 would be the "National System for Integral Family Development" which was responsible for promoting the country's social welfare. This institution now seeks to address the challenges posed to the country and ‘the need to unify the family through the promotion of social welfare and development, in coordination with the community of which DIF is part’ (DIF Culiacan, 2013).

160

As for educational infrastructure, the elementary schools in the area are Escudo Nacional during the morning shift and Arcadio Jimenez during the afternoon shift30. The director of the afternoon shift mentions several salient issues with pupils, namely child neglect, severe poverty, and domestic abuse.

Cultural infrastructure in the sector is absent, as noted by several members of the community. On the other hand, sports facilities offer some limited infrastructure, such as the „soccer field‟ or „canchas de futbol 5 de Febrero‟. The general conditions of this area are deplorable, yet these are used regularly by youths from 5 de Febrero and surrounding colonias such as Amistad and La Esperanza.

This section has presented the main physical characteristics of the peripheral area case study in the city of Culiacan, 5 de Febrero. As suggested by the citation in the introduction, the physical aspects of the community reflect and shape how life is lived within it. In a way, 5 de Febrero reflects the living conditions at the city peripheries more generally, where infrastructure is often very limited and it is only after a long process of regularisation and negotiation following irregular planning processes that services like water and electricity are established. Deficiencies in planning processes are made evident through the community‟s perceptions of problem areas such as the stream and the „invasiones‟. These areas among others in the community will be further scrutinised in chapter 6, since they play a key role in relation to perceptions of violence and insecurity in the colonia. In a similar fashion, the following section presents the central community in the city of Culiacan.

5.2 An inner-city neighbourhood in Culiacan: Colonia Centro

This section presents the background of the colonia and overall physical characteristics of the area. The origins of Colonia Centro are traced back to the foundation of the city of Culiacan (Ibarra Escobar et al, 1994). The city of Culiacan was established at the confluence of two rivers forming a third: Rio Humaya and Tamazula becoming the Rio Culiacan. This is crucial for both the

30 Mexican elementary schools normally run two shifts of classes: from 7hrs to 13hrs and from 13hrs to 19hrs.

161 city and the city centre in terms of urban growth. When La Conquista31 ended, the newly founded Hispanic settlement followed the indigenous pattern (Figure 5.9) (Ibarra Escobar et al, 1994). As with the rest of the northwest states in Mexico at that time, Culiacan remained disconnected from the main population centres of the Virreinato32. In 1831 the „Estado de Occidente‟ – made up of Sinaloa and Sonora – was divided, and the city of Culiacan was designated capital of the State of Sinaloa, which helped consolidate the city of Culiacan and the city centre as the recipient of many public services and infrastructure improvements.

Figure 5.9 Map of urban growth in Culiacan

Source: IMPLAN, 2010.

General characteristics of the population In the first decades of the 17th century, the city centre had 1,583 inhabitants (Ibarra Escobar et al, 1994). Currently, the population of the historic centre is estimated to be 9,709 (IMPLAN Culiacan, 2010b), representing 2.49 per cent of the total population of the city, in an area of 247 hectares, with a density of 41.61 inhabitants per hectare. From 1980, the city centre started a depopulation process (Table 5.1) due mainly to changes in zoning uses, mostly losing housing

31 La Conquista de Mexico refers to the submission of the Aztec people by Hernán Cortés in the name of the King Charles I of Spain the Spanish Empire between 1519 and 1521. 32 Period of rule by the Spanish Empire from the 16th to 19th century.

162 to commercial land use, a general trend and characteristic of the transformations undergone by central areas in many Mexican cities (Pradilla Cobos, 2009).

Table 5.1 Population of city centre, by year

Source: Censo General de Poblacion y Vivienda (INEGI 2000)

Data gathered from surveys in Colonia Centro show that the current largest population group in the city centre is adults over 48 years old (Figure 5.10). This group is economically independent and has education levels above those that prevail in the rest of the city. This information was also supported by data from IMPLAN Cln (2010b).

Figure 5.10 Age and gender groups, city centre.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

The population in the city centre employed in tertiary economic activities is 3,092 inhabitants, which represents 2.13 per cent of the city population

163

(IMPLAN Culiacan, 2010b). According to surveys (Figure 5.11), 36.5 per cent of respondents work in the tertiary sector (services and commerce), while 19.5 per cent are housewives, 24.3 are professionals and 17 per cent were retired. Income levels are slightly better in the city centre area than in the rest of the city; data from surveys (Figure 5.12) shows that incomes range from 2,001 to 10,000+ Mexican pesos with a little over 10 per cent of respondents earning above $10,000 (about £400-£500) per month.

Figure 5.11 Occupation of respondents in Colonia Centro.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 5.12 Income in Colonia Centro (monthly average in Mexican Pesos)

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Respondents in Colonia Centro reported higher education levels (Figure 5.13) than those at the periphery. In this area 46.3 per cent of respondents had a

164 bachelor degree, and 4.8 per cent had a master‟s degree, while in 5 de Febrero 22 per cent of respondents had bachelor degrees and none had a master‟s degree (Figure 5.5).

Figure 5.13 Education level in Colonia Centro.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Built environment and planning: Plan Parcial Culiacan Zona Centro

The city centre is a privileged area compared with other sectors of the city regarding planning matters. This area has an essential character in terms of the infrastructure it contains and its role both in the development of the city and connectivity. Since 2008 the city centre, and Colonia Centro particularly, has been the recipient of about nine billion pesos (approximately £360 million) of investment as part of a collaborative project between federal government, particularly the Secretaria de Turismo [Turism Ministry], and the municipal government for the renovation of the city centre. This project aims essentially to renew streets and public spaces in Colonia Centro, with specific physical features in order to improve tourism in the city and the state. Some of the characteristic features of the interventions include providing paved areas, broader sidewalks, new urban equipment such as benches, rubbish bins and lampposts, and installing underground wiring. The project attempts to redefine the identity of the area by making it more attractive for inhabitants to use (IMPLAN, 2010b).

165

To achieve continuity in the interventions in Colonia Centro, in 2010 the Plan Parcial Culiacan Zona Centro was drafted, with the objective of outlining the municipality‟s vision for the city centre, and justifying the investment for the renewal of the area. This plan is important in this context since it provides guidelines and strategic lines of action towards achieving the proposed urban image of the city centre. In particular, the plan is of the utmost importance for analysing the built environment in Colonia Centro, since it conditions the characteristics of the environment and the development of the area itself to a certain standard, for example, with the design of broader sidewalks and provision of new public lighting. Plan Parcial Culiacan Zona Centro is also the reason behind the emergence of newly designated areas for recreation, such as Paseo del Angel. Inhabitants‟ overall opinions about the area and what it signifies for them will be discussed later in the chapter.

As mentioned before, the city centre has witnessed depopulation since 1990; nowadays, the housing use of the area is 43 per cent of the total, and this typology of land use usually combines housing with formal and informal commerce and other uses, such as education and culture (IMPLAN Culiacan, 2010b). It is notable that the city centre has been given more importance by municipal authorities, compared with other areas in Culiacan, due to the historical nature of the area; much of the infrastructure and services are concentrated here.

The limits of the city centre are shown in Figure 5.14. The central zone of the area is depopulated, characterised predominantly by commerce (Figure 5.15). Density in the city centre is low due to the existence of single family dwellings with the exception of a few multi-family buildings (up to three). According to IMPLAN Cln (2010b) there are 195 plots that are vacant in terms of business and population in the area.

As discussed previously, the area of Colonia Centro is a very dynamic sector; different from other areas in the city, Colonia Centro has museums, galleries, plazas and public parks. A recreational area has also emerged: Paseo del Angel. Restaurants and bars have appeared, ultimately fulfilling one of the main objectives of the plan: to attract more local and municipal tourism to the area. In this sense, Colonia Centro meets the cultural and recreational needs of the sector

166 and of Culiacan. The area has benefited from the economic boost this represents, yet some inhabitants complain about the problems this brings to the area.

Figure 5.14 Colonia Centro limits, plazuelas and commercial area

Source: author, based Google Maps, 2015.

Figure 5.15 Zoning uses in Colonia Centro, ground floors.

Source: IMPLAN, 2010.

According to IMPLAN, the Colonia Centro has electricity throughout, and is satisfactorily supplied by a substation with power circuits, as well as public lighting everywhere. It is worth noting that respondents‟ complaints were due to the poor maintenance of this service in specific streets and in some instances this

167 was due to vandalism. Similarly, water supply in Colonia Centro is at 100 per cent (IMPLAN, 2010b). The water issues in the sector are related to floods during the rainy season, due to poor waste water collection management.

One of the main issues of Colonia Centro is access. Conversely to colonia 5 de Febreo, the issues are related to over-supply as it is the transport node of Culiacan. There are 67 public transport routes serving the city, with a total of 858 buses, covering an average length of 19.25 km in 83 minutes, and in some cases, up to 25 buses per street. IMPLAN (IMPLAN Culiacan, 2010b) argues that the current model of public transport in the city is inefficient, which has critical implications for Colonia Centro (Figure 5.16).

This situation results in heavy traffic congestion in the area; the service throughout is disorganised, unreliable and problematic. Research participants often complained about the reckless way bus drivers operate the transport units. The management of public transport is a matter of state administration and while the system is part of the Plan de Movilidad de Culiacan, urban mobility in the city is a pressing issue which municipal and state governments fail to acknowledge, since the lack of viable alternatives to public transport further enforces inhabitants‟ preference for private transport, exacerbating congestion problems in the city, and particularly in Colonia Centro.

Figure 5.16 Number of public transport routes passing by Colonia Centro streets.

Source: IMPLAN, 2010.

Overall, the infrastructure in Colonia Centro is wide-reaching: educational, administrative, recreational and cultural facilities are available in the area. Additionally, the area includes a significant number of the city‟s historical sites. There is no significant health infrastructure in the area besides private clinic 168

Culiacan, with limited medical specialties. There are, however, relocated municipal Red Cross facilities and the headquarters of DIF. Health in the area is not an issue according to respondents, since there are many private pharmacies that offer medical assistance for a small payment (20-30 Mexican pesos, about £1-1.50) and also the regional hospital is easy to reach. Educational infrastructure, on the other hand, represents 4.2 per cent of the total colonia area. The education provision ranges from kindergarten to university levels. The presence of educational infrastructure further augments the nature of the city centre as a place of transit and movement of people: it generates a social dynamic where many population groups circulate through this area.

A characteristic feature of historic city centres in Mexico, as with the case of Colonia Centro, is the existence of public squares and parks. Plaza Obregon is the main square, and is also where the city was founded. Throughout history, it has had several renovations and interventions; it is significant to the whole city. The plaza has always worked as a node for the city: a meeting place, and the terminus for a large number of public buses. It is the site of cultural events, political demonstrations, and reunions. Plazuela Rosales is the second most important plaza in Culiacan, having similar characteristics to Plaza Obregon. One of the characteristics of the Plazuela is that the Edificio Central [Administrative Headquarters] of Universidad Autonoma de Sinaloa is located within the plaza; hence, the users of this space are mostly students and university staff.

Another important feature of Colonia Centro is the availability of parks, recreational and sports facilities. Three are three important parks in the area of Colonia Centro: Parque Constitucion, Parque Revolucion and Parque las Riberas. Parque Revolucion is the only one fully inside the area of Colonia Centro, with recently remodelled but underused sport facilities (Fieldwork notes, 2015). The other two are at the limits of the colonia, but the three parks serve the population of the area and the whole city. Parque Las Riberas is the largest park in the city. It is a linear park which takes advantage of the river banks (Tamazula and Humaya).

Colonia Centro is in relatively good condition which may be the result of how planning processes have privileged the area, granting it its key role in terms of infrastructure for the city, compared to 5 de Febrero‟s basic lack of and

169 deficient infrastructure. Although there are apparently few areas of concern in Colonia Centro regarding its physical conditions, some areas of the community are „problematic‟ for respondents and these will be examined in chapter 6, as these areas advance the understanding of the relation between violence and insecurity and urban space – and the role of planning processes. The next section turns to the peripheral case-study colonia in Aguascalientes, Los Pericos, followed by the inner-city neighbourhood, Barrio de San Marcos.

5.3 A peripheral settlement in Aguascalientes: Los Pericos

This section begins by providing a context for the peripheral Aguascalientes case-study community, and the general characteristics of residents and overall conditions of the built environment are introduced. As with Culiacan, the following section of this chapter discusses the central neighbourhood. Figure 5.17 shows the location of both community case studies in Aguascalientes.

Figure 5.17 Location of colonia Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos in Aguascalientes.

Source: based on Google Maps, 2015.

170

The area where Los Pericos is located in Aguascalientes used to be the city‟s sanitary landfill, at the east periphery of the city (see figure 4.29). The 35 founder families of the colonia arrived in 1993. There were three community committees; from the beginning the community has been highly politicised, and this allowed them to negotiate with local authorities for the provision of basic services and infrastructure.

We were going from one political party to the other, trying to get attention and someone who would commit to basic services provision. I was formed as president of the Colonia „base committee‟ (interview Luis, 2015). They struggled because authorities refused to recognise them as a „regular‟ settlement. They faced a lack of political will to negotiate and later, evictions. In 1995, with the newly elected political party (PAN) in the municipality, they finally got legally recognised after difficult negotiations: “I told the Mayor: I can recognise a good tree, one that gives fruits to one that does not. Help me to help you” (interview Luis, 2015). After these negotiations, the consolidation of the colonia begun slowly: neighbours started to organise over basic service provision and prevented other people squatting in the area. According to Luis (2015), they had to guard their land from people of other colonias and ejidatarios who wanted to extort them, every month or week asking for „a cooperation‟ [monthly payment]. Basic services were introduced in Los Pericos in 2003, but it was not until 2005-2007 that water and electricity reached over 80 per cent of the households in the area (IMPLAN Aguascalientes, 2015).

General characteristics of the population In Los Pericos there is a total population of 4,704 inhabitants, of which 2,353 are men (50.02 per cent) and 2,329 are women (49.51 per cent) (Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, 2010). The composition of the survey sample, however, was of 82.8 per cent of women respondents and 17.1 per cent of men (Figure 5.18). The largest age groups are 48 and above and 23-27 years old.

171

Figure 5.18 Age and gender in Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

The average income of 40 per cent of respondents in Los Pericos was in the range of 2001 to 4000 Mexican pesos monthly (£100-200 at the time of research); while 17.1 per cent of inhabitants lived with a monthly income lower than 2000 Mexican pesos (approximately £100) (Figure 5.19). The economically active population in the community is 1,664 inhabitants, 35.4 per cent, and most of their activities are in the tertiary sector (Figure 5.20). For this research, however, most of the particupants were housewives (40 per cent). In terms of education, almost 80 per cent of respondents have completed primary and secondary education, while only 5.7 per cent have reached high school or a bachelor degree. Additionally, 8.5 per cent of respondents said they had no education at all (Figure 5.21).

172

Figure 5.19 Income, monthly average in Mexican Pesos, in Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 5.20 Occupation of respondents, in Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

173

Figure 5.21 Education level of respondents, in Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Built environment and planning There are about 2,000 houses in Los Pericos, with about a quarter uninhabited (fieldwork notes, 2015). It also has some of the highest marginalisation indexes in the city (CONAPO, 2010). It is connected to with other colonias, and the city, through a main street called Rodolfo Landeros (Figure 5.22). Surrounding neighbourhoods share characteristics with Los Pericos.

The limits of the colonia are shown in Figure 5.22. The main road (Linea Verde) in the colonia divides it from north to south, as well as working as a meeting point and where most of the inhabitants shop for staples such as bread, groceries, clothing, etc. This is also the only street where the bus route and taxis stop. The remaining streets in the colonia have mainly houses and small businesses.

There are two important streets running north to south in the colonia; one of them is „Linea Verde‟ or „Poliducto‟, and the other is Ave Cultura Otomi is not well-used because of the lack of pavement and lighting. Although almost 80 per cent of the streets are paved in this neighbourhood, the process of paving has been slow and intermittent.

174

Figure 5.22 Colonia limits and main streets and roads in Los Pericos.

North Limits of colonia Los Pericos

Linea Verde of Poliducto

Rodolfo Landeros Street

Av. Cultura Otomi

Source: author based on Google Maps, 2015 The colonia is not easy to reach. Transport is an issue constantly mentioned by inhabitants of Los Pericos: there are only a few bus routes which go near the colonia, by Rodolfo Landeros Gallegos street, and no service goes inside the area. About 80 per cent of the colonia has been provided with water services. There are 1,247 houses in Los Pericos, of which 88.2 per cent have piped water (Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, 2010). The rest of the plots are empty or the houses are uninhabited. According to Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes (2010), the area has full electricity coverage.

There is no educational infrastructure in the colonia. There are, however, two primary schools in neighbouring areas. One of them is located opposite to Los Pericos. The other one is located at neighbouring „Fraccionamiento Cumbres I‟. For higher educational levels, inhabitants of Pericos have to travel to colonias a 30-40 minute walk away or go by bus.

175

Participants mentioned repeatedly the lack of health care centres in the area. There is only one private pharmacy that used to offer medical attention, but it ceased to do so since inhabitants could not afford it. Inhabitants from Pericos have to go as far as Fraccionamiento Cumbres I or Mirador de las Culturas for medical attention. Similarly, cultural infrastructure is non-existent in the sector. This issue is the „inspiration‟ behind the Linea Verde project, which aimed to provide some type of recreational infrastructure to the east of the city. The Linea Verde project (Photo 5.4) is important for this area and for the focus of this research: providing the context of the nature and objectives of the project is essential to understanding the area, and particularly Los Pericos.

During the last three decades, Aguascalientes underwent a significant expansion of its urban area, which occurred mostly at the east of the city, an area that lacked basic services and infrastructure. In this context, Linea Verde was built on an urban space that remained restricted for occupancy along 12 kilometres in this part of Aguascalientes. In this space a pipeline provided a physical boundary for the city. However, the area occupied by the pipeline, used informally as a depository for waste and garbage, was finally absorbed by the urban sprawl. Thus, the area was conceived as problematic since it became “a depressed urban space and an area of high criminal risk, as an ideal place for the appearance of crimes and increasing insecurity and fear of the population to be victims of crime” (Reyes and Lazos, 2013:33).

Since the area was identified as neglected and problematic, and due to the increasing levels of violence in the area, in 2011 the public policy „Convivencia y Seguridad Ciudadana‟ (discussed in chapter 4) was implemented as a response to these issues. The project aimed firstly, at providing a recreation area that would satisfy the needs of this sector of the city, and secondly, to work as a project of „urban acupuncture‟ that would enhance security and improve the overall conditions of the urban space. One of the main drawbacks of the project was the lack of involvement of the inhabitants in the process of design and implementation of Linea Verde, even though citizen participation was one of the main aims of the programme. Respondents maintain that the intervention has resulted in criminal actors appropriating the space to take drugs, and it has become a place where gang fights constantly occur, thus limiting inhabitants‟ use

176 of this space and increasing their feelings of insecurity. The role of Linea Verde will be analysed in detail in chapter 7.

Photo 5.4 Linea Verde in Los Pericos, from Rodolfo Landeros Gallegos Street to the north of Pericos.

Source: author, 2015

In a way, the urban development of Los Pericos has been similar to that of 5 de Febrero, and many other peripheral settlements in Mexico: it developed on irregular land and the majority of its inhabitants are poor, lack of planning, disconnected from the city, among others. A deeper analytical comparison of peripheral and central communities‟ similarities and differences are offered in chapter 8. In Los Pericos, despite the provision of recreational infrastructure like Linea Verde, there are several areas of concern expressed by inhabitants. These and the relation between the conditions of the urban space with violence and insecurity will be explored in detail in the following chapters. The next section presents the second case-study neighbourhood in this city, Barrio de San Marcos.

5.4 An inner-city neighbourhood in Aguascalientes: Barrio de San Marcos

Barrio de San Marcos is located within the first ring road of the city Aguascalientes – the historic ring. San Marcos emerged in the early 17th century, when several indigenous groups from surrounding villages began to settle and build their homes on the edges of the town of Aguascalientes. The first records of the existence of San Marcos date to 1622, and soon colonial authorities

177 recognised it as a Pueblos de Indios33 and granted inhabitants communal lands. The town grew slowly at the periphery of la Villa de Aguascalientes (see chapter 4, section 4.3); benefiting from this location and seizing the opportunity of nearness to the Villa, inhabitants of San Marcos used to trade in Aguascalientes. The barrio rapidly acquired elements that gave cohesion and stability, such as independent authorities and a small chapel built in honour of the Immaculate Conception, and it also formed a Cofradia – a religious brotherhood in the area – and a hospital.

The town of San Marcos had a crucial role and was actively involved in the development of the region, especially during its first three decades (1620- 1650); San Marcos seems to attract indigenous immigration, due to its status as a Pueblo de Indios. This village was the first of four indigenous settlements that help consolidate the city of Aguascalientes in colonial times. The development of the town was drastically modified at the beginning of the 19th century, due to the consummation of Mexican Independence. Aguascalientes belonged administratively to the congress of Zacatecas, a neighbouring state, at this point. After Independence, the government of Zacatecas ordered that the lands of the communities be divided among inhabitants into small individual plots. Following this provision, the inhabitants of San Marcos sold the land in their community to the Villa de Aguascalientes between 1826 and 1834, when the town disappeared as such and was transformed into a colonia of Aguascalientes.

The relevance of San Marcos did not fade, however, because in 1851 the local authorities agreed that the Parian centre in San Marcos would become the headquarters of the trade fair held in Aguascalientes since 1828. The Feria del Barrio de San Marcos provided the Barrio its current identity and would also influence the development of the area, in terms of the infrastructure provided for the activities of the Feria. Thus, even when inhabitants of the town of San Marcos sold their lands and it lost its character of Pueblo de Indios, the town managed to consolidate not only as one of the most important areas of the city, but also as a stage for what would become one of the most important trade fairs in Mexico during the 20th century.

33 Pueblos de Indios refers to indigenous villages that existed during the Spanish colonisation of America.

178

General characteristics of the population According to (INEGI, 2010), there are 3,272 inhabitants in Barrio de San Marcos; 44.2 per cent are male, and 55.6 are female. The population of Barrio de San Marcos is one of the oldest of the city. Based on the information gathered from surveys, 48 and older was the major group (Figure 5.23), followed by the 38-42 group. Barrio de San Marcos has an area of 47.38 hectares, with a density of 69 inhabitants per hectare (IMPLAN Aguascalientes, 2015).

Figure 5.23 Age and gender in Barrio de San Marcos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

The reported largest income group for Barrio de San Marcos was in the range of 4001 to 6000 monthly Mexican pesos, followed by respondents earning from 2001 to 4000 Mexican pesos on monthly basis (Figure 5.24). These income groups may be explained by the fact that, the majority of respondents‟ occupation in the area was housewives (33.3 per cent) and pensioners (13.3 per cent) (Figure 5.25), accounting for an older population group. Regarding education, the majority of respondents have bachelor degrees (Figure 5.26).

179

Figure 5.24 Income, monthly average in Mexican pesos in Barrio de San Marcos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 5.25 Occupation of respondents, Barrio de San Marcos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

180

Figure 5.26 Education level of respondents in Barrio de San Marcos .

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Built environment and planning The prevailing zoning uses in the area are housing, recreational and educative infrastructure, according to IMPLAN. The neighbourhood limits are depicted in Figure 5.27.

Figure 5.27 Limits of Barrio de San Marcos and infrastructure.

Source: author based on Google Maps 2015 Since Barrio de San Marcos is located within the historic centre of Aguascalientes, accessibility is not an issue: almost all the 41 bus routes of Aguascalientes go through the neighbourhood, or run through the peripheral

181 streets. Similarly, service provision in Barrio de San Marcos is very good. There are a total of 1,217 households in the area, of which 1,000 are occupied and 217 are unoccupied or abandoned. According to IMPLAN and INEGI, basic water, sanitation and electricity services cover 99 per cent of Barrio de San Marcos. The service-related issues mentioned were, for example, on the temperature of the tap water, or that public lamps were not working on some streets (fieldwork notes, 2015).

La Feria de San Marcos

La Feria de San Marcos has been a determinant factor in the development of the neighbourhood. The Feria dates back to 1828, when it was held through October and November, mainly for commercial reasons. At that time, Aguascalientes was a major producer of grapes, and the fair served as a trading point among neighbouring states. However, the nature of the fair changed drastically, and now it is mainly related to recreation. This fair was originally held at the Parian, a commercial centre located two blocks from the Plaza de Armas of the city, and was then moved to Barrio de San Marcos. The „Feria Nacional de San Marcos‟ has a remarkable importance in economic terms for the whole city; it attracts over 8 million visitors each year (Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, 2010).

In this sense, the needs of infrastructure for hosting La Feria have shaped the built environment of Barrio de San Marcos. Most of the activities of La Feria are held in Barrio de San Marcos; this is one of the reasons why at the end of the 19th century, a bullring was built in the Barrio. Other areas in the neighbourhood are also used for fair activities (Photo 5.5) such as a pedestrian street in the Barrio, the Jardin de San Marcos garden, and the esplanade of the Templo de San Marcos (Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, 2010). La Feria de San Marcos also impacts the configuration of the environment, as most respondents agree that even when the Feria gives most of them an economic benefit, the negative effects are latent. Residents from the area prefer to rent out their homes to tourists in order to avoid the inconveniences the Feria represents. Additionally, as will be discussed in chapter 7, most of the violence and insecurity-related incidents in the neighbourhood happen during the Feria.

182

Photo 5.5 Arturo J. Pani street, pedestrian area, with administrative buildings for La Feria de San Marcos on the left.

Source: author, 2015.

Besides commercial and Feria-oriented infrastructure, educational provision abounds in Barrio de San Marcos. There are seven kindergartens, eight primary schools, one high school and four secondary schools. Respondents pointed to areas near the schools as being insecure, since the facilities are deserted at night, and there is insufficient lighting. Health infrastructure is very limited; only pharmacies offering private consultations are available, where a medical consultation costs $20-30 pesos (£1-£1.50 approximately). However, this is not an issue for respondents, since a couple of blocks outside the neighbourhood there are two clinics serving the community. Additionally, there are three social care facilities.

The historical facets of Barrio de San Marcos make it a reference point for the entire city, and a known tourist destination at national level. Besides the facilities where the Feria is held like the bullring [Plaza de Toros de San Marcos] and Palenque [Concert Arena], Jardin de San Marcos is an iconic public area in the neighbourhood. The garden was built in 1847 in order to provide the residents of this neighbourhood a place of recreation in a natural setting (Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, 2010) (Photo 5.6).

183

Photo 5.6 View of Jardin de San Marcos.

Source: author, 2015.

Barrio de San Marcos, being a traditional „barrio‟, has good facilities and infrastructure that serves the rest of the city, similar to the Culiacan central neighbourhood. In both areas, there are seemingly few problems in terms of insecurity and violence. As the following chapters will illustrate, however, inhabitants reported many violence and insecurity issues, some of which are attributable to planning processes in central areas.

5.5 Conclusions

Chapter 5 provided the basic context of the four case-study communities where the research was undertaken. The chapter introduced the main socio- economic, demographic and urban issues of four communities, which provides a contextual basis that supports the rationale for the research objectives outlined in chapter 3. This chapter has depicted the research setting of 5 de Febrero, Colonia Centro, Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos, Setting the scene aids in analysing manifestations of violence and their interaction with the urban space (chapters 6 and 7), in order to answer the research questions.

Moreover, recognising some of the limitations in terms of basic service provision and infrastructure presented in peripheral areas, allows later scrutiny of the role of the conditions of the urban space and planning processes in relation to urban violence and insecurity issues, which is covered in the following chapters. Some similarities can be pointed out at this stage, regarding the urban and physical characteristics of the areas. On one hand, Colonia 5 de Febrero and Los Pericos were established as irregular settlements and followed a complicated

184 process of regularisation; while, on the other hand, the inner-city neighbourhoods – due to their historical importance – tend to be privileged in terms of infrastructure, urban equipment and service provision.

Some of the issues elucidated through this chapter can be associated with the characteristics of the planning processes that have guided urban development in Mexican cities and will be returned to in the upcoming chapters. As chapter 6 and 7 will illustrate, perceptions of insecurity exist across the board and are often linked to planning processes.

185

CHAPTER 6 Perceptions of violence and insecurity in urban space: Culiacan

Everyone is behind closed doors, locked gates and grilled windows. If you could look more closely, you would see bullet holes piercing the side of the community centre and bloodstains on the sidewalk in front of it. [This] reveal[s] what it is like to live with violence. (Perlman, 2010:122)

Introduction

Chapter 6 presents empirical evidence collected focusing on violence issues and how these have implications for the ways in which inhabitants construct their mental conceptions of urban space. Inhabitants‟ coexistence with violence is more nuanced and complex than is often assumed in the literature and by urban authorities. The chapter explores these interactions looking at the relation between urban space violence and insecurity, to support the argument that socio-spatial violence responses should incorporate residents‟ lived experiences of violence, as well as perceptions of insecurity.

Chapters 6 and 7 ground the issues mentioned in previous chapters, namely, how planning processes and patterns of urban development affect communities, issues of violence and insecurity, and the configuration of urban space, presenting the way these issues are lived in communities through respondents‟ perceptions. This chapter pays special attention to the different manifestations of violence and perceptions of insecurity in communities, as well as the impacts on urban space and the role of urban planning. Inhabitants of the communities identify places associated with violence and insecurity; they also recognise failures in community planning and infrastructure, such as a lack of pavements and public facilities affect perceptions of security, and depopulation and zoning. The chapter is structured in four sections. Section one explores urban space, violence and insecurity issues in the peripheral settlement in Culiacan, colonia 5 de Febrero; the inner-city neighbourhood, Colonia Centro, is presented in section two. The information in the following sections, as discussed in chapter 3, originates from fieldwork data. This chapter shows that there are different planning-related causes attributed to violence and insecurity in the two different

186 neighbourhoods; which is revealed through the comparative approach discussed in section three. This section also analyses how manifestations, and more importantly, perceptions of violence affect communities‟ conception and use of urban space. The analysis is extended in chapter 8, where parallels between peripheral and central neighbourhoods are made, following the analysis of these issues in the Aguascalientes case study neighbourhoods (chapter 7). Conclusions to this chapter are provided in section 6.4.

6.1 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in a peripheral colonia

5 de Febrero is known in Culiacan for being a violent and dangerous place (interview Culiacan Participa staff, 2015). Official data regarding actual criminal violence in the sector was unavailable since “it is classified and cannot be open for public consultation”34 (Secretaría de Seguridad Pública y Tránsito Municipal, 2015). However, a local civil society organisation, „Circo Volador‟, carried out a project in 2012 titled „Diagnosis and intervention with young people in the context of violence and crime [Diagnóstico e intervención con jóvenes en contextos de Violencia y Delito], and their objective was to develop a diagnosis of social violence, insecurity and vulnerable youth in two colonias of the municipality of Culiacan, Sinaloa (interview with Circo Volador, 2015).

5 de Febrero was selected for the programme implementation because many criminals inhabit the sector, according to official records of crime incidence by colonia (Circo Volador, 2015). Thus, the colonia is assumed to be one of the most conflictive of Culiacan, according to official incarceration figures. For this reason, the colonia has been targeted for the implementation of projects and programmes which seek to reduce and prevent violence at municipal, state and federal level. My research showed, however, that the understanding of violence in these interventions is skewed and tends to generalise violence; this research encountered many manifestations of violence, ranging from domestic to economic.

34 This was the response to two official requests made to the Secretaria de Seguridad Publica y Transito Municipal (personal records) [See earlier discussion of problems accessing information in chapter 3.

187

The remoteness of the colonia and its location at the periphery of the city further enforces the image that is often depicted in newspapers: a lawless settlement “where they [criminals] kill and bury” (interview with Director of Culiacan Participa, 2015; see also (Valdez, 2011; Monjardín, 2014). The high levels of marginalisation in the colonia (see chapter 5; CONAPO, 2010) along with the fact that 5 de Febrero is believed to be home to a large concentration of criminals (Circo Volador, 2014) exacerbates this perception of the neighbourhood, even when inhabitants‟ opinions about violence and insecurity are divided. The remainder of this section explores, firstly, manifestations of violence in the area through inhabitants‟ perceptions of (in)security; secondly, the effects this has on the built environment; and, lastly, how citizens change their uses of space according to perceptions of insecurity.

Diverse perceptions of insecurity and the normalisation of violence Most of the population maintained they felt secure and there were no violence issues in the community. Yet, although respondents said they felt safe, they often inadvertently mentioned several types of violence in the community and recalled having experienced or being aware of violence-related incidents occurring within the community. One of the first community members interviewed35, Juan mentioned:

I feel very comfortable, very secure, I know that there is danger but I feel ok, for I have spoken with bad people, like drug addicts ... I went to talk to them because they stole a water meter from my house, and it‟s certain that if I chase them by bicycle, I‟ll catch them. So I confronted him [the thief]…because He [God] uses me to be corrective of the youth, they are the problem here… just to let them see that they are doing wrong, they‟re robbing and using drugs in public spaces... I have already been shot at for confronting them, without being rude ... but I feel safe, like I said, I love this place and here I'm going to die (interview Juan, 2015). Hence, Juan acknowledges robbery, drug use in public areas and being shot at as issues within the community, but for him these are not violent incidents. Other respondents also said they feel safe in the area, while identifying certain types of violence, such as attempted rape and assassinations. In this way, there are

35 See a full inventory of interviews conducted in 5 de Febrero and general characteristics of respondents in annex 3.

188 hints at normalisation of violence in the area and how violence as a form of „culture‟ is internalised (see chapter 8; (Galtung, 1990). For example:

I feel very, very safe. Nothing has ever happened to me, or my family, maybe because people know us. Nothing ever happens here, we are viewed as one of the worst colonias in Culiacan, and I know that, we are seen as a poor, violent community, but nothing happens here… Although, I will contradict myself, a few months ago, I heard that a young guy was „levantado36‟ from here [Juan de la Cabada and Tierra y Libertad, one block from her house], and he was later found assassinated. But he was „on the wrong path‟ [involved in criminal activities]… And a few weeks ago, there was an attempt of rape by the stream, it gets really dark at night and a couple of young girls were coming back home; they were really scared but they were safe… You know, maybe I‟m like the frogs… (interview Diana, 2015). With this last expression, Diana was referring to a tale where, if a frog is placed on a pot of water and brought to the boil, it will remain there, whereas if the frog is placed straight into boiling water it will jump out immediately. What she meant is that, maybe she is used to the rising levels of violence in the colonia, since she has always lived there and she does not know any different way of living. Diana also recognised that this is the reason why she perceives her colonia as a safe place, in addition to the fact that she has never been a victim of a crime in this area. These types of comment were mentioned by other respondents as well, since for them, violent incidents are “the daily bread… it is not uncommon to see people doing drugs in public spaces and people being robbed at night. Coming home from work is a gamble, you may be robbed, or you may not… ” (interview Caro, 2015).

From the accounts of respondents, it can be understood that urban violence – in its multiple manifestations – and insecurity have been accepted and normalised by inhabitants as an intrinsic part of their everyday lives. Respondents are aware that violence and insecurity – both as a fact and a phantom (Pansters and Castillo-Berthier, 2007), direct or indirect – exist in their surroundings, and they are forced to learn to live with violence. This endurance to violence from

36 ‘Levantado’ is a term used in Mexico, especially in States with evident presence of organised crime. It refers to a person being kidnapped or abducted generally with the aim of assassinating the victim. Most ‘levantados’ remain missing or their bodies are dumped at the outskirts of the city where this happens.

189 long-term association has implications for the ways in which inhabitants construct their mental conceptions of urban space and thus adapt their routines to places they consider „safe‟. This is central to my research and will be explored further in the following sections.

As with Juan and Diana, in 5 de Febrero, most residents tend to blame and criminalise „the youth‟ („la plebada‟ or „los chamacos‟, referring to unoccupied young males) for being „on the wrong path‟ or being involved in criminal activities, and hence, for the feelings of insecurity and the crimes committed in the colonia. They insist that the culprits are a group of young males who gather in public spaces and consume drugs and alcohol in full sight of the public in the few existing public spaces and street corners. Residents also mentioned that some of these young males are known as „punteros‟ or young people enrolled in organised crime who monitor the territory, carrying the „goods‟ (drugs or other illegal products), and/or making small transactions.

This speaks directly to issues of youth criminalisation (Pain, 2003; Winton, 2005) and organised crime, which are present throughout the state of Sinaloa, where „narco-cultura‟ prevails and unemployed young males are stereotyped as automatically involved in organised crime. However, drug traffic issues were mentioned only indirectly by respondents, for example, “the situation [with organised crime in Culiacan] has now cooled off” or “one has to let them [drug traffickers] work” (interview Jose and Caro, 2015).

By contrast, respondents expressed their perceptions of insecurity in terms of „everyday‟ crime more straightforwardly. For example, the director of the DIF Centre, who also lives in the settlement, explains:

I think it is a very insecure community. So far, we [at DIF facilities] haven‟t been victims, but I have been hearing comments from the residents that crime is on the rise. I‟ve heard it, I have no proof… Some residents were telling me that their houses were robbed because they live close to the „invasión‟ [squatter settlement]. I am not sure if the thieves are from there, but I feel that because of this invasion the colonia is affected because you hear and see that there is where the whole problem begins, all of the insecurity… It does not help that all of the streets are dark, there is a lack of public lighting and at the bus stops, people are assaulted. Young men do hard drugs wherever

190

they want; the whole colonia is dark at night, which allows them to. I have not been robbed or assaulted, but knowing all that happens… that makes me feel insecure. We cannot go out at night because streets are so dark…(interview with DIF director, 2015). As can be seen, perceptions about community security are divided and contradictory. Residents are aware of violent incidents; nevertheless, many still feel safe. Supporting this point, 51.6 per cent of respondents said they think their community is safe for walking, transiting and using public transport, while 48.3 per cent disagreed (see Figure 6.1).

This evidence undermines the simplistic assumptions implied in official responses, such as in the case of the Rescate de Espacios Publicos programme intervention in „las canchas‟, discussed earlier. Violence issues vary from respondent to respondent and, as McIlwaine and Moser (2007) wrote, “when the poor are actually consulted […] it emerges that not only is violence increasingly dominating their lives, but it is becoming even more diverse and complex” (118). The ways in which violence affects the urban poor – particularly at the urban peripheries – is evident in 5 de Febrero, as violence manifestations are multiple and ubiquitous, resulting in violence permeating inhabitant‟s daily lives.

Figure 6.1 Security perception, 5 de Febrero.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

191

Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity On experiences of crime, 74.2 per cent of participants reported having been a victim of a crime in the area, while 25.8 per cent said they had not (Figure 6.2). In other words, even when most of the population has been a victim of a crime, half of the respondents still feel safe in the area. Participants‟ perceptions ranged from “it is now very calm and pleasant; nothing happens here anymore” to “you cannot walk alone at night, they‟ll rob you or you will be „levantado‟”. Participants tended to contrast „before‟ with „now‟; when asked “Before what do you think the colonia was more insecure?” they would refer to key young males being „levantados‟ or „assassinated‟ or to the fact that “the situation [in Culiacan, with organised crime] has cooled off” (interview Jose, 2015). One of the organisations interviewed that worked in the sector, Circo Volador, has unofficial records showing that in five years (2007-2012) there were nine victims (young males) of assassination or disappearance in the area.

Figure 6.2 Crime victimisation in 5 de Febrero.

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

A prominent issue in the area is crime underreporting. As is the case in many poor communities, distrust towards the police or authorities is generalised (Howard et al., 2007; McIlwaine and Moser, 2007). Police patrol presence in the area is rare; they do not patrol at night, according to several residents. Furthermore, there are no police stations or any surveillance units in the colonia. Some respondents suggested that police responses might actually exacerbate their

192 fears and perceptions of insecurity. The director of a civil society organisation working in the area discussed one of the reasons why people do not report crimes:

People used to report crimes, or call the police if they saw someone robbing or using drugs in public spaces. Then police used to come, arrest the responsible person and after half an hour or less, they would let them go in another area of the colonia, telling them who had pointed a finger towards them; allowing them to retaliate. This is why people do not report crimes or trust the police. Because, who would, really? (interview Culiacan Participa, 2015). As mentioned before, official crime records for the area (and the city) were unavailable. Adding to this, the issues raised here of distrust of authorities, particularly of the police, further enforce official records as unattainable and unreliable, as they are seen to largely underestimate crime occurrence. In surveys, participants reported having been victims of robbery, assault or burglary. Respondents said they had been direct victims of crime or knew someone who had.

This was the case of Caro, a community leader whose nephew had been „levantado‟. Through her experience she exposed the complexity of the violence situation in the colonia. At the start of the interview, her response regarding security was blunt and short. When asked how safe she felt in the colonia, she answered:

I feel very safe here, this is a safe colonia, everybody knows who I am, and they come to me to ask me for things, candy for kids, medicine for the sick… it is all good, it‟s a good colonia (interview Caro, 2015). As the interview moved forward, after an hour or so, the question was rephrased, and her answer changed drastically:

You have to be from here [5 de Febrero], to be able to walk around here. If you did not understand if you're a stranger … come at night and see if you get out of here alive… Who are they? [the perpetrators] We do not know. I do not go out at night but I know that there is one and there is another one and they were beaten up and „levantados‟. I hear these things because people come to me. The mother of one of them [the victims] came and told me "Ay, Caro, my son was „levantado‟”…and then another one, a few months later said "Caro, they killed my son." And I cannot do anything about it! I can only offer them

193

tea, coffee and sugar for the funeral. That is all I can do to support them […] these are kids who are at the canchas [football court next to CESAVVI], at two, three, four in the morning, what are they doing there? They are not praying, right? They are doing bad things… that is why they get „levantados‟ […]… When they killed my nephew, the only thing I told them was, “You know what? If you already killed him, just give me his body so I can bury him”… The next day the body appeared. [..] His body was all torn apart. But no one knows who did it…and I didn‟t care to go asking around… (interview Caro, 2015). After her account, Caro insisted she feels „very secure‟ in the colonia, because „nothing ever happens‟. This is one example of the criminal violence to which inhabitants are exposed; in their experience, this kind of violence has been „normalised‟ when it occurs to „certain type of persons‟ (Howard et al, 2007; Moser and McIlwaine, 2006). The notion that „nothing ever happens‟ and violence normalisation are discussed throughout the rest of this chapter and the following two chapters.

Another important and an unsettling finding, is the fact that domestic violence figures are so high (according to data by Circo Volador), that a Centre for Attention to Victims of Domestic Violence (CESAVVI, in Spanish) exists within the colonia. The existence of this type of facility in the sector demonstrates alarming levels of domestic violence present in the area, which is often not so readily associated with how outsiders perceive these colonias. The external perceptions are that all types of violence are a result of narco-violence. To exemplify, the coordinator of the centre, Baldovino, pointed out: “There‟s so much abuse and interfamily violence in this area, you wouldn‟t believe it”. This issue was also raised by the primary school director:

I‟ve seen unspeakable things. I‟ve even called „State Human Rights‟ once, but they didn‟t do anything. There was a case of a girl that was „sold‟ by their parents, and another girl whose uncle raped her. Her mother was aware. And she didn‟t do anything (interview Profesor Antonio, 2015). Manifestations of child abuse and domestic violence are thus common in the area. As mentioned above, CESAVVI is a centre for victims of domestic violence; “it is focused exclusively on providing comprehensive care for women living with violence of any of the existing types, such as physical, psychological, economic, sexual, and property-related” (interview Baldovino, 2015). As the

194 interviewee from CESAVVI suggests, the centre was built due to government official data and indicators that showed that inhabitants of the colonia and its surroundings were living with many types of family violence, particularly against women and children.

Residents‟ awareness of a complex insecurity and violence panorama

The fragments of the previous interviews present a complex panorama, including mentions of domestic, economic, and criminal violence, with different manifestations such as drug abuse, rape, assaults, robbery and assassinations in 5 de Febrero. Respondents speak of the different manifestations of violence naturally, and they argue these are linked:

Drug abuse and home desertion are the most serious problems of the community, where it all starts… The separation of parents ... it is very easy to divorce, then the children will be wandering alone, later using drugs, and soon enough they will be stealing and killing (interview Juan, 2015). This was also expressed by staff of CESAVVI:

You must consider, we are a centre of support for women victims of domestic violence, but it does not end there. I think the issue of security is a complex issue, because here in the area, what we live as workers has to be separated from what we experience as inhabitants. The only comment that people express is insecurity, being robbed, theft, whether pedestrians or houses[…] People come to ask for the phone to report that they were robbed, whether pocket money, wrist watches, mobiles [...] It is almost always young boys who are responsible, because if there are substance abuse problems which we have noticed here, there are the other problems, they steal, they kill, it becomes easy for them… (interview CESAVVI, 2015). The violence in the colonia is usually associated with specific places, with the exception of domestic violence which tends to occur in private spaces (Meth and Malaza, 2010). Some places in the colonia are associated with insecurity because homicides have taken place there. For example, in Juan de la Cabada street (opposite the corner of Plan of Tuxtepec), about seven years ago a person was killed (Circo Volador, 2014). On that same street, a little over a year ago, a man was attacked and killed at night, minutes after high calibre gunfire was heard. In Juan Rulfo street (from Plan de Ayala and Tierra y Libertad) two young

195 victims were travelling in a car, when they were intercepted and gunned down, on October 2010 (Circo Volador, 2014). Similarly, there was an account of the death of an adult man and his brother killed on Luis de la Mora Street (Circo Volador, 2014). These reported incidences of violence explain to some extent the fact that these streets were consistently identified by respondents as insecure locations. Additionally, there is no working public lighting throughout these streets.

Processes of violence appear thus to be embedded into contextual and institutional settings (Moser and Horn, 2011). The next section looks at how urban violence and insecurity might be embedded in a context through institutional processes, eg planning processes, exemplified by three areas: las canchas, the stream, and „las invasiones‟.

Places of violence a) Failed spatial improvement interventions: the case of „las canchas‟

As discussed in chapter 5, las canchas area is an example of an arguably failed attempt to improve public space; this area was the focus of a federal-led intervention to improve public spaces, „Programa Rescate de Espacios Publicos, PREP‟ in 2012 by SEDESOL, yet was consistently mentioned as insecure by respondents. This federal programme, introduced in chapter 4, aims at “recovering public spaces to foster community identity, social cohesion and generating equality of opportunities, as well as contributing to diminish urban poverty and preventing antisocial behaviour”, according to its operational guidelines (SEDESOL, 2011).

After mentioning problematic places and places associated with violence thorough the community, Juan pointed out the north part of 5 de Febrero, from Graciano Gomez Street, the invasiones area, las canchas and Luis de la Mora Street (Figure 6.3). He asserted that, to him, las canchas were insecure:

We stop using them [las canchas] because of drug addicts. You cannot go walking because they are already smoking ... on the soccer fields [canchas] and on almost every corner. Unfortunately, we cannot change routes because there is only one access and one way to get home [from work]. Then we have to stop going out ..., there are many problems, vandalism, because they [young males] are very destructive and threaten

196

people and make us feel insecure. I have to go running at 3 in the afternoon because they have tried to assault me. And they know me, I know who they are, but I have to avoid them. I am always exposed, and it even means losing out on public spaces… (interview Juan, 2015).

Figure 6.3 Participatory mapping Juan, las canchas area circled in red.

Source: participatory mapping, Juan, 2015.

Juan‟s interview refers to his inability to use several public spaces since he feels insecure using them. According to respondents, the lack of community involvement and the inadequateness of official interventions tends to exacerbate feelings of insecurity, creating a potential location for violence and crime. In the case of las canchas, contrary to the programme expectations, inhabitants from 5 de Febrero point it out as one of the places where they feel more insecure.

These places selected by respondents appear consistently, identified as places where they feel insecure and would avoid. When they were asked why, their responses were:

I would feel safer if the physical spaces were adequate, and guarded ... it is useless to adapt, improve it and not look after it… they [the youth] trash everything in one night. Take, for example, those things the municipality put in the „canchas‟ the

197

benches, grills, basketball hoops…they destroyed everything, they [the municipality] had to come and fix it again ... the pieces that were left there, were used [by criminals]to hide and cover when they are using injections [injecting heroin]. You'd be better by removing the stands and grills, to leave everything clean, because there would be nowhere to hide and no criminals would nest there. Or turn the space into a neighbourhood centre (interview Juan, 2015). The provision or improvement of public and recreational areas is often included within violence reduction strategies that consider the built environment (Mexico Evalua, 2015). These spaces are meant to work as a focal point and to bring together the community to host a variety of activities, since some infrastructure was provided – benches, tables, and a covered area (see Photo 6.1). However, physical improvement programmes have some limitations: exemplified by the case of 5 de Febrero, the rehabilitation of public spaces, such as soccer fields and public areas, has had little success in reducing violence and improving security, and this in turn has enhanced feelings of insecurity in inhabitants.

Photo 6.1 ‘Las canchas’area by Jose

Source: auto-photography by Jose, 2015

As discussed in chapter 2, in a spatial approach to violence the role of urban planning at local and community levels can become crucial in reducing opportunities for crime and violence. However, in attempting to improve urban space, authorities have provided further locations for opportunistic crime to occur. This suggests that there is a „gap‟ in the way urban space is designed and constructed by planners, in this case by how authorities respond to urban violence issues and how residents conceive urban space. It is also an example of the lack of attention to urban upgrading processes which exacerbates feelings of insecurity

198 within community members. Creating areas and not involving the community in the process of change means inhabitants do not identify with nor appropriate these spaces, which are then taken over by criminal actors (Photo 6.2 and Photo 6.3).

Photo 6.2 ‘Las canchas’ area by Juan

Source: auto-photography Juan, 2015

Photo 6.3 ‘Las canchas’, place associated with violence by Juan,

Source: auto-photography Juan, 2015

Residents perceive „las canchas‟ area as insecure, and largely show dissatisfaction at the intervention. This implies that, even when investment is made in physically improving the conditions of the area, if there is no social component (Cozens, 2011), the community is not not compelled to be the „eyes on the streets‟ to enforce community „self-policing‟ (Jacobs, 1961). The outcomes of these interventions are thus limited and temporary solutions, exposing the issues that arise from implementing violence-prevention initiatives like „recipes‟, with little consideration for inclusive planning processes. The constant deterioration of the existing infrastructure impacts negatively on a community‟s sense of security in this place. This is not a result of the infrastructure's

199 encroaching dilapidation, but is due to the limited community involvement in any change process. The place becomes appropriated by criminal actors who are believed to be responsible for destroying improved areas, without any real consequences for them, thus inviting them to transgress without consequence (reminiscent of 'broken windows theory', Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

b) Deficient services and infrastructure: the stream

Deficiencies in terms of infrastructure and public services are also seen as a factor that negatively affects perceptions of security. For example, Juan exposed:

It is important to consider the issue of public transport. There is only one route and it ends when the driver wants. It should run later, even if it‟s dangerous, because a lot of people have night shifts at work, or they go to school at night, so it means that when they must come home, there is no transport available, they end up walking and this is when they are robbed. This is because there is no public lighting in some streets, especially at the stream and then at night no one wants to go out, there is no one on the streets. This is the main issue here (interview Juan, 2015). In Juan‟s opinion, poor transport service and lighting influences residents‟ chances of being robbed coming home from work or school.

Another area consistently identified as insecure is the stream (or Arroyo 2). Jose‟s map (Figure 6.4) illustrates some of the places which make him feel insecure (brown colour lines) and those he avoids (purple colour lines), which include the stream, Luis de la Mora street, Segunda street, which is adjacent to the soccer field in CESAVVI, and the area of las invasiones. In the case of the stream (Photo 6.4), his perceptions are influenced by lack of infrastructure – pavement and lighting – and the fact that bodies have been found there, allegedly related to domestic violence (Noroeste Redaccion, 2010). This is seen as a dangerous area at night which lacks public lighting, and which was also identified as a dump.

The issue was corroborated by „Circo Volador‟ and supported by the accounts of the residents. When asked “Have you seen/heard or experienced any crimes in the area?”, most of them answered that they had heard about different types of crime being committed near the stream, such as robbery and assault, and

200 that bodies had been found there. Also, accounts supported the role of the arroyo as an insecure place in the area (see interview with Diana above), by the area‟s association with several manifestations of violence and insecurity – eg deaths, homicides, or attempted rape and assaults nearby.

Figure 6.4 Jose’s participatory map, stream and invasiones area circled in red

Source: participatory mapping by Jose, 2015

Photo 6.4 Pollution on the stream, 5 de Febrero

Source: auto-photography by Jose, 2015

201

Given the association of the area with homicides or unexplained deaths, Arroyo 2 is seen as a problem by the community and outsiders. The director of Culiacan Participa stated that:

The stream is the only topic that seems to bring the community together. Everybody wants something to be done about it, really. The thing is … if you look in the newspapers, you will see that bodies have been found there. It is so dangerous at night, you cannot see where you are walking or if someone is going to attack you there (interview Director Culiacan Participa, 2015). There had been demands made to the municipality to provide infrastructure – namely a pavement, sidewalks and lighting – for the stream, but since it also involves the federal government in the form of CONAGUA, the process is slow and cumbersome.

As shown in this section so far, some areas in the colonia are perceived as dangerous, whereas in others actual crimes have been committed. Feelings of insecurity are not necessarily linked to the provision of infrastructure: in some cases it is evident that the lack of infrastructure has a clear influence in how safe people feel, such as in the case of the stream, whereas in other instances residents feel insecure despite infrastructure being provided, as in las canchas.

c) Unplanned development: ‘las invasiones’

The „invasiones‟ is another area that the community, associated with conflict and insecurity, and is also illustrative of the deficiencies of planning in the configuration of urban space enhancing feelings of insecurity. Although there are no official records of crimes committed in this area, participants associate the place with feeling insecure since several assert that it is where „criminals live‟ and these are „casas de seguridad‟ [so-called safe houses for drug dealers, often used for criminal activity]. Many respondents mentioned that inhabitants from the invasiones are the ones coming at night and burgling houses, assaulting and raping young women. In the invasiones area, a person was burnt to death and the remains were left in the dirt (according to Circo Volador); in the same area, an

202

„encobijado‟37 was found in 2013. The invasiones were consistently pointed out as a place of conflict. In this sense, the area exemplifies the planning authorities‟ inability to plan for and account for the illegal occupation of unsuitable areas for housing development.

To summarise: there are some places in the colonia where violence and insecurity are directly linked to violent incidents happening there. Other places associated with insecurity are more straightforwardly related to poor environmental conditions (e.g. las invasiones and the stream). Other examples are neglected footpaths with a makeshift wall covered in graffiti (Photo 6.5a) and a pedestrian bridge going over a stream that is polluted and gets dark at night (Photo 6.5b). In some other instances, violence and insecurity are linked to places where interventions to reduce insecurity have failed (the „canchas‟). It is thus complicated to draw a direct link between the built environment and insecurity, since in some cases, regardless of the fairly good conditions an area might have inhabitants still feel insecure while transiting through or using those spaces. This echoes the importance of perceptions in the configuration of urban space and the role of planning, as by action or omission planning creates certain conditions that enhance insecurity. This will be further discussed in section 6.3.

Photo 6.5 Places associated with violence and insecurity

a) footpath identified as dangerous b) makeshift pedestrian bridge

Source: auto-photography Juan, 2015

37 Similarly to the word ‘levantado’ which is used in states where narco-violence is prominent, ‘encobijado’ refers to bodies which have been fatal victims of drug-related violence and are abandoned in the street, often wrapped in a blanket [cobija], or sheet.

203

Spatial limitations due to fear of crime and insecurity

Although respondents argued they feel safe in the colonia, there were many activities they avoid carrying out due to perceiving places as insecure and fear of being a victim of a crime (Figure 6.5). Among them are: going out at night, allowing young children to go out at night, going for a walk and using public transport. Since most streets in the colonia lack public lighting, 87.09 per cent (27) of respondents said they avoid going out at night.

Figure 6.5 Activities avoided for fear of being a victim of a crime in 5 de Febrero

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Most of respondents report stark limitations in terms of usage of the urban space, as a result of fear of being a victim of a crime, despite perceptions of insecurity being divided by a close margin (48.3 secure versus 51.6 insecure, see figure 6.1). This discrepancy – divided opinion between perceptions of security and insecurity – might be explained by the normalisation of violence, as discussed previously.

Many manifestations of violence are present through the community, from public to private areas. However, analysis of the underlying issues of three problematic areas shows: the „las canchas‟ area represents a failed physical space intervention as a response to violence issues; „el arroyo‟ illustrates infrastructure deficiencies; while the area of „las invasiones‟ depicts the implications unplanned

204 development has for the perceptions of violence and insecurity of the inhabitants. This in turn has implications for planning processes in the peripheries since policy responses to violence still focused on physical space or „situational‟ measures rather than more holistic approaches to the types of violence mentioned and to the construction of the urban space. These points will be further discussed in chapter 8. The following section presents the violence and insecurity issues in Colonia Centro, in Culiacan, in order to compare and contrast between neighbourhoods at city level.

6.2 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in the city centre

Most of the manifestations of violence in Colonia Centro are related to economic violence. Respondents report assaults, robbery, burglary, and vehicle theft as their main concerns regarding violence. While some issues of alcohol and drug consumption in public areas were reported, similarly to 5 de Febrero, there were no reports of assassinations or „levantones‟. This section explores the manifestations of violence present in the area, highlighting that, although different types of violence and residents‟ perceptions are difficult to compare across neighbourhoods, these provide some insights about violence and insecurity interactions with the urban space, since – as will be argued – their effect on inhabitants‟ perception of insecurity is similar.

In Colonia Centro economic-related crimes are the top concern. Nevertheless, more than 40 per cent of respondents believe Colonia Centro is safe to walk or transit through, while almost 60 per cent believe it is insecure (Figure 6.6). This data is relatively consistent with the number of respondents who reported having been a victim of a crime in the area (Figure 6.7).

Inhabitants from Colonia Centro referred to robbery, assault and vehicle theft. Other crime-related issues, such as alcohol and drug consumption in public areas, were similar to those mentioned in 5 de Febrero, yet to a lesser degree.

205

Figure 6.6 Security perception Colonia Centro

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 6.7 Crime victimisation in Colonia Centro

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity Participants‟ accounts referred to specific physical areas of concern and to feelings of insecurity:

I feel safe here, in my house. But outside, I don‟t know, we hear that things happening in the whole city and things happen here as well, one cannot feel safe anymore. Every night that I park my car I feel fear, it might not be there when I wake up in the morning. People think the city centre is very secure, but we have many issues too… we do not lack services like water or sanitation or even lighting, but the colonia is dangerous at night,

206

it gets very dark and lonely in some streets… (interview Melisa, 2015). One thing to be noted is that despite having more developed infrastructure and the conditions of the colonia being overall better than 5 de Febrero, this does not equate to improved feelings of security. A common issue from inhabitants of Colonia Centro is that they feel safe within their houses, but insecure in the streets. She also acknowledges that inhabitants from the rest of the city perceive Colonia Centro as very safe, and her perception is that the area is mostly insecure, since economic-related crimes are usual. She raises two important issues which are related to the appearance of violence and crime in the area, parallel to 5 de Febrero: planning zoning uses, and low habitation rates in the area. These two issues have a clear influence in the incidence of crime and the way inhabitants perceive the spaces, as will be elaborated below. Melisa mentions vehicle theft as a persistent crime in the area and one of her main security concerns. This complaint was also pointed out by Rafa:

Well, there is a lot of car theft, because there is little residential use and then at certain times of the night and on weekends it is more solitary [the area of the colonia]. Then the people coming from outside the colonia are more likely to be subject to vehicle theft and assault. Basically these are the problems in the colonia. Insecurity due to robbery and assault insecurity when walking at night (interview Rafa, 2015).

Places of violence a) Zoning uses and low density

The nature of the area as a zone of transit hinders social cohesion, since inhabitants rarely get to know their few residents. Added to this, participants mentioned that “migration” and “new people coming over [to the city centre]” exacerbate their feelings of insecurity. New inhabitants are students and people from other states, in some cases; this further marks the area as a transit zone in terms of the circulation of vehicles and people.

People [from the city] believe Colonia Centro is very secure, but it is not. Our houses get robbed, our cars get robbed, and we cannot walk at night because we might get assaulted…There is no sufficient public lighting [in Angel Flores street], it is dark at

207

night and „vagos‟ [unemployed and unoccupied young males] linger around street corners. And you see, there is no one to turn to [in case he is being robbed] because there are very few residents left here, there are only closed curtains [security curtains for businesses] at night, no one sees what happens on the streets (interview Mauricio, 2015). In the context of Colonia Centro, the (mostly economic) crime and violence that respondents reported, is linked to characteristics of the built environment. For example, Mauricio elucidates the absence of natural surveillance or spatial visibility. Also, the zoning uses in the sector generate areas where residential population is minimal or there are no inhabitants at all, as in the central quadrant, from Jose Maria Morelos to Alvaro Obregon Street, and throughout Leyva Solano Blvd. This implies the existence of areas which are deserted at night and lack surveillance, creating settings for opportunistic crime and increasing feelings of insecurity. Furthermore, the overall low population in the area implies that there are “fewer eyes on the streets” (interview Mauricio, 2015), and makes it difficult for citizens to relate to their environment, impeding inhabitants from creating a sense of belonging.

Similar to concerns in 5 de Febrero, 65.85 per cent of respondents here noted alcohol and drug consumption in public areas as some of the main security- related issues in several specific streets of the colonia. One of these is Angel Flores street, from Ruperto Paliza to Aquiles Serdan street, which is meant to have a commercial and recreational land use, as with Paseo del Angel, but is seen as problematic (see figure 6.28 in section 6.2). Additionally, inhabitants report drug and alcohol consumption beyond this designated area. Given the heavy vehicular and pedestrian flow to the area, natural access control (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007), or communities‟ appropriation of access to common spaces, is absent from this area of the colonia, allowing the physical characteristics of certain social spaces to encourage or incite crime.

Respondents‟ perceptions of insecurity changed drastically from one street to another in Colonia Centro, due to the zoning uses and the number of inhabitants in each street. For example on Angel Flores Street, from Ruperto Paliza to Aquiles Serdan where Paseo del Angel is, participants said they feel secure, and this is one of the places where they usually spend time and enjoy

208 being during the daytime. However, the same street, from Aquiles Serdan to Venustiano Carranza Street was perceived as insecure, since there have been many vehicle thefts and assaults.

Several places in Colonia Centro were identified by participants as insecure and violence-related; in some of these places actual crimes have been committed, such as robbery and vehicle theft. Other areas, according to participants, make them feel insecure because of the layout of the buildings and the particular characteristics of the physical environment, such as streets where businesses prevail and which are dark and deserted at night. The places constantly mentioned by participants were Blvd. Leyva Solano, and Venustiano Carranza street, while other places were identified as insecure particularly at night, namely Ignacio Zaragoza and Teofilo Noris streets, and Cristobal Colon street.

b) Day and night zoning uses: temporal dimensions of insecurity

Melisa‟s map (Figure 6.8) shows the places where she feels insecure, and she explained that some of the reasons she feels insecure in these areas is due to lack of lighting, and where there is little flow of people or because it gets deserted at night. Part of the issue is related to the educational zoning of the area. Also, a section of Teófilo Noris Street runs below a vehicle bridge, creating a space close to facilities of the Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa which by day works as a parking lot, but by night is desolate and dark. This area has been identified as problematic by several respondents (Photo 6.7), and reports of vehicle theft and assaults have been made.

209

Figure 6.8 Melisa’s participatory map, Teofilo Noris and Zaragoza street circled in red

Source: participatory map by Melisa, 2015

Melisa stated:

There is a part of Teofilo Noris and Zaragoza which gets very lonely after the university closes. My niece‟s car was stolen from under the bridge [parking space]. If my daughter comes out late from her English classes, I must go and pick her up, because I don‟t like her walking alone through that area after sunset (interview Melisa, 2015). Also close to this area, and similarly to colonia 5 de Febrero, the presence of criminal behaviour in public spaces was mentioned by respondents, namely in Plazuela Rosales. Plazuela Rosales (Photo 6.6) is a landmark in the area given its patrimonial and cultural significance as a part of the Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa. The Plazuela is conceived as a secure, recreational and cultural space during the day, yet, during night time it is seen as an insecure space by inhabitants, who avoid transit through the area after sunset. This serves as an indicator of the temporal dimension of insecurity:

I love Plazuela Rosales by day, I love that there is music some days and people gather to dance. I love that sometimes there are exhibitions. But I don‟t like going there at night, I don‟t like that my daughter walks through there alone at night. It‟s too dangerous, there are almost always „vagos‟ doing drugs and I don‟t trust them (interview Melisa, 2015).

210

Photo 6.6 Plazuela Rosales, secure by day, insecure by night

Source: auto-photography Melisa, 2015

Photo 6.7 Parking space below Teofilo Noris street.

Source: auto-photography Melisa, 2015

Other places where Melisa feels insecure, as represented in the photographs, are two sections of Leyva Solano Boulevard (Photo 6.8), where there have been robberies; to the west of the colonia, abandoned plots abound and there are particularly solitary streets (Photo 6.9). On the insecurity of Leyva Solano Blvd Melisa commented: “The thing with Leyva Solano is that, you have a rapid access to the businesses but it is a fast lane, so it is easy for them [perpetrators] to spot a place, get in by car, assault them and leave. All under three minutes and at any time of the day”. Leyva Solano was pointed out by other respondents as an insecure street both by night and day. This might be due to the low level of housing in the street, and the fact that it is a fast lane that goes across the city. Melisa also commented on Venustiano Carranza street, for similar reasons; the

211 street has mostly commercial properties, with heavy vehicular flow and, additionally, deficient public lighting.

Photo 6.8 Section of Blvd. Leyva Solano considered insecure

Source: auto-photography Melisa, 2015

Photo 6.9 Av Lateral Oriente between Angel Flores and Miguel Hidalgo Street

Source: auto-photography Melisa, 2015

c) Designing insecurity: commercial and recreational areas

In the case of Mauricio‟s map (Figure 6.9), Boulevard Leyva Solano (purple and brown) was also pointed out as an insecure place, and an area he avoids because businesses have been robbed both during day and night time. He also highlighted Cristobal Colon street as a place he would avoid at night (purple and brown), since the street is mostly made up of commercial land use and the businesses that exist tend to close with steel curtains at night, provoking large transit areas without residents‟ surveillance. Also, for Mauricio, some of the

212 insecure places are those with few inhabitants, or streets with blind walls, such as the corner of Agustín Lara and Aquiles Serdán street (Photo 6.10).

Photo 6.10 Agustin Lara and Aquiles Serdan Street,

Source: auto-photography Mauricio, 2015

He marked Paseo del Angel as a place where he usually spends time and he feels secure. However, he feels insecure on the west side of Angel Flores street (Photo 6.11). As can be seen from the photograph, there are several closed businesses on the street with steel curtains, and a heavy transit of people, that for him, made the area “not appealing for walking” and made him feel insecure. Most of the pictures show steel curtains whether open (during daytime) or closed (abandoned or unopened business), blind walls, and in some cases, deserted streets. He commented on this:

There are streets that you wouldn‟t dare to walk at night. There are all closed curtains. This is where you might get robbed; also, those blind walls, as I said, no eyes on the streets. All of the residents are locked up in their houses, no one to turn to in case of being a victim of a crime or something. It gets very lonely, even during daytime, in some streets (interview Mauricio, 2015).

213

Figure 6.9 Mauricio participatory map, Leyva Solano boulevard and Cristobal Colon street circled in red

Source: participatory map by Mauricio, 2015

Photo 6.11 West Angel Flores Street

Source: auto-photography Mauricio, 2015

Changing use of space

Respondents emphasised that as a result of feeling insecure, some of the activities they avoided for fear of being a victim of a crime in the area are going out at night, and using certain streets such as Blvd. Leyva Solano and Venustiano Carranza. Other activities avoided, based on surveys, were: carrying large amounts of cash (56 per cent), going out at night (48.7 per cent), allowing young children to go out at night (41.4 per cent), using public transport (39 per cent), and going for a walk (34.1 per cent) (see Figure 6.10 ). Furthermore, more than 40

214 per cent of respondents maintained that they regularly change routes for transiting through the community when possible (Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.10 Activities avoided for fear of being a victim of a crime in the Colonia Centro

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 6.11 Percentage of respondents who change routes through the community due to insecurity, Colonia Centro

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

An interesting aspect of the analysis of Colonia Centro and residents‟ perceptions is that, contrary to Jacobs‟ (1961) proposal, differentiated zoning uses and incentivising transit in neighbourhood areas increases feelings of insecurity in this case, rather than decreasing them (Valenzuela-Aguilera, 2012). It is also

215 interesting to note that perceptions of insecurity are not that different from those in the peripheral area, despite a stark contrast in the conditions of urban space. The next section further compares the two neighbourhoods in Culiacan under three recurrent themes.

6.3 A comparison of two neighbourhoods in Culiacan

Comparing the two neighbourhoods analysed in the previous sections provides an insight into the implications of urban violence and insecurity in the diverse urban spaces of the city of Culiacan. More precisely, this comparison permits the exploration of different indications of urban violence and insecurity, inhabitants‟ perceptions of these across the city, and additionally, how the role of planning policies is present in these two neighbourhoods. This contributes to the overall argument of the research, showing how violence has a myriad of often interconnected manifestations whose impact is difficult to measure, yet it has an evident influence on the way people conceive and use urban space. Thus, perceptions of violence and insecurity should be considered in planning processes.

The neighbourhoods are compared under three recurring themes from empirical findings, corresponding to the research questions: residents' experience and perceptions of violence – and normalisation of violence; planning, infrastructure and insecurity; and changes in the use of urban space.

Resident‟s experience and perceptions of violence

Violence and insecurity issues in Colonia Centro are quite different from 5 de Febrero. More incidents of violence were reported in colonia 5 de Febrero, and residents' perceptions were that these are linked, echoing the violence chains concept. As this appears to be a shared characteristic of peripheral neighbourhoods, the violence chains concept is used as an analytical frame in chapter 8. Moreover, the type of violence reported by inhabitants in 5 de Febrero has a higher impact than those in Colonia Centro. In the periphery, domestic violence, child abuse and, in some instances, homicide and „levantones‟ were reported by participants. The numerous instances of violence have permeated into daily life, leading to a normalisation of violence, where inhabitants see violent-

216 related incidents as acceptable. In Colonia Centro, the manifestations of violence are fairly limited to economic violence, vehicle theft and assaults being the most commonly reported violent cases.

Even if the intensity and type of violence manifestations differ, perceptions of violence and insecurity are not so different. Levels of fear and insecurity are very similar in both central and peripheral neighbourhoods, despite the different phenomena of violence presented, and even despite radical differences in the conditions of the built environment, and the urban space. As mentioned before, this may be related to the normalisation of violence in colonia 5 de Febrero, and the fact that, inhabitants have adapted to the increasing levels of violence.

Planning, infrastructure and the built environment

Perceptions of violence and insecurity seem to be embedded into and triggered by contextual settings; some of these contextual settings are tangible characteristics of the built environment, while some others are intangible. Tangible contextual settings affecting perceptions of security can be associated with the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design theory and include accessibility and connectivity of the neighbourhood and natural surveillance. Social cohesion is an example of an intangible characteristic that has an important role in inhabitants‟ perceptions of security and, in this case, is generated mainly by planning processes. For instance, in Colonia Centro, zoning uses creates areas where commerce and educational infrastructure prevail, resulting in deserted areas at night since housing is limited and thus few residents are there. This results in fewer „eyes on the streets‟, and thus situational crime occurs. Conversely, in 5 de Febrero, the main zoning use is housing, and most importantly, most of the inhabitants know each other. This is reflected in two issues: firstly, how secure inhabitants think their neighbourhood is (Figure 6.12), and secondly, how they think outsiders perceive their colonia (Figure 6.13).

217

Figure 6.12 Comparison of security perceptions in Colonia Centro and colonia 5 de Febrero

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 6.13 Comparison of respondents' opinion about outsiders’ perception of neighbourhoods, Colonia Centro and 5 de Febrero

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Other tangible factors affecting perceptions of security in communities relates to age groups – with an older population in Colonia Centro and a younger population in 5 de Febrero – and the fact that, according to official data, 5 de Febrero is home to many ex-convicts (fieldworkd data, 2015). This has prompted authorities to plan and implement interventions to reduce violence, which however show marginal results due to a simplistic understanding of violence. As

218 demonstrated in this chapter, the manifestations of violence are many and affect in various ways inhabitants‟ perception of security. Analysing and comparing the contextual settings of 5 de Febrero and Colonia Centro offers an interesting glance at the role planning processes and characteristics of urban space have in making places insecure and fostering violence. A way to interpret the findings presented in these chapters, particularly helpful in the comparison between neighbourhoods, is to analyse the role of planning through the concepts of active and passive planning.

Active planning relates to concrete planning actions conducted by authorities, such as the intervention in upgrading the soccer fields next to CESAVVI by Rescate de Espacios Publicos in 5 de Febrero by SEDESOL. In the soccer fields, an urban upgrading intervention for reducing violence has in fact increased feelings of insecurity in the area, generating areas that inhabitants perceive as insecure and thus avoid.

In the case of Colonia Centro, active planning is shown by the existence of a plan for the area „Plan Parcial Culiacan Zona Centro‟ (section 6.2). This planning has both a negative and positive effect. Indeed, the plan allows zoning use which creates recreational spaces such as Paseo del Angel, where alcohol consumption is permitted – and even incentivised – but also has a negative effect in surrounding areas and, ultimately on inhabitants‟ perception of security. Also, in active planning, Colonia Centro has been provided with a range of infrastructure which stimulates increased numbers of people coming into the area, that in itself impacts on inhabitants‟ perception of security, as „strangers‟ are encouraged to transit through the community.

Passive or absent planning, on the other hand, helps to explain the way in which the absence of or deficiencies in planning from local authorities in regulating planning processes generates neglected and uncared-for spaces, such as the stream and particularly, the „invasiones‟ in 5 de Febrero. These places are considered as insecure and violent, due to the abandonment and lack of attention and action from authorities. Passive planning in Colonia Centro, for example, has generated areas where opportunistic crime is made easier, since planning mechanisms indirectly create these spaces – Paseo del Angel, deserted areas on

219 both ends of the colonia – and remain unchanged by the lack of action of the authorities. Since urban violence and insecurity appear to be more clearly related to planning processes and physical aspects of Colonia Centro, the CPTED concept is also used as an analytical frame in the case of central neighbourhoods in chapter 8.

Changes in the use of urban space

Extensive spatial mobility restrictions have been identified as a consequence of communities experiencing acute violence across Latin America (McIlwaine and Moser, 2007). In the case of Culiacan, inhabitants of both neighbourhoods reported stark restrictions on their use of physical space in their communities due to their perceptions of insecurity. Going out at night, allowing young children to go out, going for a walk and using public transport were activities avoided by respondents in both case studies.

In both cases, physical space interventions were analysed: one that seeks to promote tourism but generates insecurity and violence-related incidents (Paseo del Angel, Colonia Centro) through areas that were planned for alcohol consumption; and the other that seeks to reduce violence through the improvement of recreational infrastructure (Las canchas, 5 de Febrero) but similarly generates places where there are few barriers to opportunistic crime, and overall makes inhabitants feel insecure. An interesting parallel is how planning processes seem to be opaque, largely excluding citizens‟ views from the configuration of urban space and resulting in exacerbated perceptions of insecurity. In both cases, regardless of the conditions of the built environment respondents feel predominantly insecure in their communities.

These findings suggest that the construction of urban space should go beyond planning authorities and official plans. As Cozens (2011) argues, planners must seek to achieve an extensive understanding of the types, patterns and trends of violence. These case studies illustrate how planning processes fail to grasp the implications that „everyday crime and violence‟ have for urban space. Thus better understandings of violence and insecurity patterns, attractors, actors and potential causes should be part of planning, in order to consider how paths, nodes and the

220 site speciﬁcs can generate risk locations that encourage crime or solutions that facilitate its prevention (Cozens, 2011).

6.4 Conclusions

This chapter has analysed perceptions of urban violence and insecurity in a peripheral settlement, 5 de Febrero, and an inner-city neighbourhood, Colonia Centro, both in Culiacan. The main aim was to present the types of violent incident, perceptions of insecurity, and the planning-related processes in each area. The chapter offers insights on the different violence manifestations present within the city, and how planning processes differ from the city centre to the periphery, which may have an impact on both violent occurrences and perceptions of insecurity.

In these cases, the four levels of risk factor in the ecological framework presented in chapter 2 – individual, community, urban and social levels – interact in different ways to account for violence and insecurity. Additionally, planning processes seemed to affect the relation between risk factors. The cases support the assertion that planning processes in Culiacan – whether by active or passive planning – influence inhabitants‟ perceptions of security, configuring the spaces communities conceive as insecure, and in some cases, facilitating actual violent occurrences. For example, in the case of colonia 5 de Febrero some deficiencies of the built environment enhance perceptions of insecurity. In Colonia Centro, attention to planning processes and the overall maintenance of the built environment improves to some extent the appearance of violence and crime, namely through the provision of well-illuminated streets and public places people relate to. Yet feelings of insecurity are not very different from those in 5 de Febrero.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, in 5 de Febrero violence and high impact crimes have been normalised, and many manifestations of violence and their apparent linkages suggest the concept of violence chains; in Colonia Centro, most violence is identified as economically driven. Secondly, due to land zoning uses, density in 5 de Febrero is higher than in Colonia Centro, which means that there are more „eyes on the street‟ (Jacobs, 1961). This alludes to the different

221 theories discussed in chapter 2 linking the built environment with the appearance of violence, crime and insecurity, namely how the violence of urbanisation imposes certain projects which interrupt social relations – like Paseo del Angel – and the impacts of a legacy of modernist planning which pushed the urban poor towards the peripheries, or the „informal‟ areas of the city.

The argument of the thesis is advanced by acknowledging that knowing the particularities of violence and crime occurrence is critical, or “where and when speciﬁc types of crime concentrate within the city [..] might contradict or work against some of the other design features of a good quality built environment” (Cozens, 2011:483), highlighting the importance of planning processes.

Some similarities have emerged in terms of recurring themes which were discussed here. There are also, however, differences that required further analysis, such as the use of different analytical concepts such as violence chains in the peripheral settlement and CPTED in Colonia Centro. These will be further discussed in chapter 8, as parallels can be drawn between peripheral and inner- city neighbourhoods, once the violence and insecurity issues in the two communities in Aguascalientes have been introduced.

222

CHAPTER 7 Perceptions of violence and insecurity in urban space: Aguascalientes

The spatial or grounded environments of violence; the diverse „landscapes of fear‟ shape our existence and help to deﬁne our actions, territories, and understanding of what happens around us (Howard et al, 2007:721)

Introduction

This chapter presents the empirical evidence gathered in two communities studied in the city of Aguascalientes, Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos. The chapter presents issues of violence and insecurity in the two communities, as well as pinpointing the implications that planning processes, urban development, and the configuration of urban space, have over community perceptions of violence and insecurity.

The chapter allows a preliminary analysis of differences and similarities among central and peripheral communities in the case of Aguascalientes. In the case of Los Pericos, a peripheral neighbourhood, several incidents of violence were reported. Respondents‟ main concerns were associated with domestic violence, gang fights, drug abuse, and burglary. Additionally, the inhabitants of Los Pericos identify hot spots or places associated with violence and insecurity, while also recognising failures in the community planning and infrastructure that affect their perceptions of security. In Los Pericos, the analytical concept of violence chains is applied to make sense of respondents‟ opinion that manifestations of violence in the area are linked. In the case of Barrio de San Marcos, the main crimes affecting respondents‟ perception of security were alcohol and drug consumption in public areas and frequent assaults and robbery, referred to as low impact.

The ecological framework set out in chapter 2 is returned to in order to show how the levels of risk factors interacting for the emergence of violence in the ecological framework of violence, and the urban and planning processes affecting this interaction, are present in both cases. The differences found regarding violence manifestations, planning processes and urban space between neighbourhoods supports the argument of the thesis: perceptions of urban

223 violence and insecurity affect citizens‟ views and uses of urban space and should be included in planning processes, particularly when devising socio-spatial responses to violence. Similar themes to the ones mentioned in chapter 6 emerge from the empirical evidence presented in this chapter, for example, the normalisation of violence in peripheral areas, and the limitations of a solely „situational‟ approach as a response to violence.

The chapter is structured like chapter 6: the peripheral neighbourhood Los Pericos is presented firstly, followed by the central one, Barrio de San Marcos in section two. Section three provides an analytical comparison of both neighbourhoods, and section four, conclusions for the chapter.

7.1 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in a peripheral colonia

This section explores manifestations of violence and insecurity in the peripheral community of Los Pericos, in Aguascalientes. In this city, and different from the case of Culiacan, city level data regarding crime was acquired, so it was possible to compare official data across the peripheries and city centre.

According to official data (SEGOB and SESNSP, 2016) and citizens‟ perceptions, high impact crimes38 are less common in Aguascalientes than in Culiacan. Inhabitants of Los Pericos, for example, do not mention homicide or assassination as their security concerns; gang fights, robberies and burglary are what they fear the most. According to participants‟ responses during interviews conducted with this community, crime and violence are linked to domestic abuse, or gangs and drug consumption. Additionally, inhabitants of Los Pericos are aware of the perception the rest of the city has of the community. They maintain that Los Pericos is seen as a dangerous, insecure and violent community. Yet,

38 High impact crimes are defined as those crimes which, due to the severity of their effects and high levels of violence are the most damaging to the population; they contribute the most to perceptions of insecurity and vulnerability of inhabitants. There are several intepretations of what makes a crime high or low impact. Some are focused on the direct damage inflicted on the victim, such as direct impact and external negativities observed, or over the impact which generates a marginal increase of felonies and over citizens’ perception of security (Zepeda, 2008). In the context of Mexico, these include, but are not limited to, intentional homicide, kidnapping, rape, drug crimes (producing, trafficking, transporting or dealing); human trafficking; money laundering, vehicle theft, piracy, as well as violent robberies, assault and burglary. This is discussed further in chapter 2 of literature review.

224 they resent this; it was mentioned repeatedly during interviews with community members about outsiders or municipal officials. Despite knowledge of being perceived as an insecure community by outsiders, almost 60 per cent of respondents said they consider their community safe to transit, walk or use public transport in (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1 Security perceptions, Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity

Although surveys show that almost 60 per cent of respondents said they feel safe in the colonia, inhabitants of Los Pericos mentioned several manifestations of violence during surveys, and particularly in interviews. The main insecurity related issues in Los Pericos were: the presence of gang-related violence, drug and alcohol consumption on public areas, and frequent assaults and robbery. Some of the issues were identified by respondents as occurring on a daily basis, such as robbery and assault, while others happened on a weekly basis, namely gang-related violence. Additionally, domestic violence was also recognised as an issue by some respondents. One interviewee noted:

You hear something violence-related happening here on a daily basis…someone broke into a house to steal, someone was robbed on the street, or the neighbour is hitting his wife or kids, and gangs fighting other gangs with stones and sticks or even „navajazos‟ [knifes] on the weekends,… That is our „daily bread‟ (interview Tomas, 2015).

225

Tomas lives by Linea Verde (see chapter 5, figure 5.26); he mentions that gang fights are a common concern, since two rival gangs live in the sector and they often use Linea Verde as a battle ground. This type of violence-related incident, along with muggings, were among those which affected inhabitants‟ perceptions of security the most, since they are commonplace. Inhabitants mentioned that these types of incident happen in specific areas, such as Linea Verde and Santa Anita Street – north of Pericos – and San Patricio and San Jorge streets – south of Pericos – with little intervention from local police and authorities. Clarisa, another respondent, further elaborated on insecurity issues when asked about problems in the colonia:

Natalia: Are there any issues in particular? Clarisa: Insecurity. There are robberies and assaults every day. And people doing drugs [she laughs] but we are good people! I am being serious, though, insecurity is an issue. I don‟t like them [neighbours]! You‟ll see, we are good people, I‟m not just saying, we do not meddle with anyone, we wake up every day very early to go to work, even Friday, Saturday and Sundays, and people are making messes, kids doing drugs and fighting at Linea Verde and throwing rocks, and people getting robbed coming home from work. Every single day. Natalia: Is this in any area in particular? Clarisa: Everywhere, in all the colonia. But mostly on the other side of the avenue [west of Ave Cultura Otomi]. There are problematic people … we don‟t know who they are […]they have made an „asaltadero‟ [crime black spot] since it's dark they rob anyone, taxi drivers, people walking … And the worst thing is, you can hear the patrols up there [Rodolfo Landeros Gallegos Street] and they do nothing! Clarisa‟s interview elucidates the complexity of violence in the colonia. Her interview also exposes issues such as the lack of response from local police, since the colonia is seen as a „no-go area‟ by authorities and outsiders. Also, respondents such as Clarisa and Thalia point out that the problem of robbery and assault is related to drug abuse in the colonia, where children often start using drugs as early as six or seven years old:

What happens here is the use of drugs. That is the main issue. You can see six-year-old children sniffing glue [inhaling solvents]. They get into drugs at a very early age because parents do not pay attention to them and then they [children] are

226

always in an urge to get drugs; they try to get easy money in any way they can. They will rob anything. The other day, I left a window open, and they took my husband‟s t-shirt, a used one. And later I saw them trying to sell it for 10 pesos [about 50 pence]. These are the same boys you‟ll see later using drugs and fighting at Linea Verde. And the thing is that when you are pickpocketed and you don‟t realise, you are lucky, otherwise they might stab you for your shoes (interview Thalia, 2015). In respondents‟ opinions, all violence-related incidents in the colonia seemed to be linked together, and some of the causal factors, as they stated, are domestic abuse, family breakdown and drug use. This alludes to the concept of violence chains explored earlier, where different manifestations of violence are interlinked; in Gloria‟s words:

Natalia: Which do you think are the main issues in the colonia? Gloria: Everything that has something to do with youth and drug addiction, which is related to family breakdowns, that is where all the issues come from. Every day you see people doing drugs. Every third day they fight here, everyday there are robberies. The kids that fight and rob and do drugs are 15-17 years old, but their parents don‟t pay attention to them. One thing is that parents have to work all day, and the other is that sometimes they [parents] are the ones doing drugs or drinking alcohol…It is really saddening because later on you can see them with their bags of glue [inhaling solvents]…These are the kids that then are doing hard drugs in public areas, attacking and assaulting or even stealing from houses… It is because their parents do not pay attention to them… (Gloria interview, 2015). These responses offer an impression of the overall perceptions of inhabitants of the security situation in Los Pericos. Since Los Pericos is considered both from an official and citizens‟ perspective as a “problematic, poor and dangerous place” (see chapter 5), the colonia has been the recipient of programmes and projects that aim at reducing poverty and domestic violence. Many organisations over the years have selected Pericos as a beneficiary of support and varied activities. On one hand, the government implements programmes and projects to alleviate poverty and to prevent violence with little results. Civil society organisations, on the other hand, donate clothing and food to those who need it in the area, or conduct workshops and training and skills for

227 work, domestic violence, entrepreneurship, etc. One of these civil society organisations is CECADEC.

CECADEC stands for Centro de Capacitacion Para el Desarrollo Comunitario A.C. [Training Centre for Community Development]. It was created with the objective of “Working for the benefit of adults, adolescents, and children living in marginal areas of Aguascalientes who belong to families where a lack of information about sexuality and violence prevails”,(Canal-Antuna, 2014:97). CECADEC works in poor communities of Aguascalientes on a wide range of topics, mainly: domestic and sexual violence, dysfunctional families, sexually transmitted diseases, sex at an early age, unwanted pregnancies, etc. They work towards improving “the appalling reality that the population in the marginal areas of Aguascalientes are living, and other issues such as a higher-than-national birth rate, early pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in the east side of the city” (author translation, Canal-Antuna, 2014:101).

CECADEC worked in Pericos for a year offering workshops for sexual education and domestic violence prevention. They also offered contraceptives, medical attention, legal advice, psychological support and counselling for victims of sexual or domestic violence. Mariana, the director, commented on why they selected Pericos, and her overall impressions of violence in the sector:

Mariana: Pericos has been a colonia with high marginalisation indices, very poor [...] The attention they receive from the government has been incomparable to other sectors of the city, all of the efforts go there, if there are donations of clothing from other NGOs, if there are federal projects and programmes, and the reality is that very little improves. […] There are many issues but violence has always been an outstanding issue there. We detected a lot of domestic violence during our first operations there. Women came to all of the workshops we offered there, they reported that they were abused by their partners and that they never received the attention they needed from the authorities [police]. They used to be mocked, whenever they went to report domestic violence, if they ever went […] It is really a matter of the home. You see, in Pericos there are groups of young people doing drugs, fighting and stealing from other inhabitants, and it is a vicious circle started within the family, because parents have to work, and the kids are left alone, then they encounter drugs and these work as an introduction to get them into drug trafficking … We had a

228

project with young people in Pericos, of violence prevention and staying away from gangs but very few showed up… it‟s almost as if they like being in a gang… (interview Mariana CECADEC, 2015). The incidence of domestic violence and, in some cases, child abuse was also corroborated by the director of CECADEC. Inhabitants in the colonia mentioned several other incidents, such as being robbed coming back from work and while walking through the community (mostly small amounts of cash, but even necklaces and shoes). 48.5 per cent of respondents said they had been a victim of a crime in the area (Figure 7.2). Generally, violent incidents stay within these types in the colonia – gang fights, burglary, robbery, and assaults.

Figure 7.2 Crime victimisation in Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Alicia, a community gatekeeper contacted through CECADEC, commented that two other incidents had recently occurred in Los Pericos recently. The first one was gang related, where inhabitants of Los Pericos gathered together to confront rival gangs after being robbed:

A couple of weeks ago, a bunch of „vagos‟ from neighbouring colonias [Rodolfo Landeros] came to steal from houses, we know it was them because they are part of a gang and they have issues with the gang from Los Pericos. They normally do not mess with „regular‟ inhabitants… it is usually among themselves, but that day they came to steal whatever they could: gas tanks, bicycles, anything… Later that day, when the neighbours found out exactly who was responsible, they went to

229

look for them and they beat them… They had had enough. In that sense, the colonia is very united. There has been no retaliation from them so far [the Rodolfo Landeros gang] (interview Alicia, 2015). In the same way as 5 de Febrero in Culiacan, inhabitants‟ perception is that these manifestations of violence and insecurity are linked. Using the violence chains concept, violent incidents seemed to be embedded into and triggered by contextual settings, where these occur in specific areas in the colonia, such as Linea Verde and the north and south limits. This has implications for urban space and planning, since the appearance of violence happens, on the one hand, where conditions are neglected and on the other, where the urban space is in relatively good condition. These spaces, particularly Linea Verde, are being over taken by criminal actors, as reported by respondents.

Furthermore, gang-related violence in this area has a great impact on inhabitants‟ perception of insecurity, since it is very commonplace and incidents happen in public spaces. As Winton (2005:168) argues, the presence of gangs as a „social institution‟ brings about implications for the geography of communities, particularly representing „changes in social landscapes‟ and enhancing “the socio- spatial construction of fear of (violent) crime among young people”. Adding to this, “the notion of gangs as embedded, as part and product of the social environment, not separate from it” (Winton, 2014:403) highlights the way in which certain violence manifestations are apparently embedded within the context of the areas (Moser and Horn, 2011).

Inhabitants of Los Pericos tend to blame „the youth‟ and „gangs‟ for their increased perceptions of insecurity; however, there are no official statistics to account for this. Nevertheless, respondents‟ „reality‟ as depicted through interviews and participatory methods, imply that the problem deeply affects the community. The reason for this might be that gang-related violence occurs in highly visible areas. The locations where violent incidents happen, like Linea Verde, are meant to be recreational and secure places provided with infrastructure and where residents spent quality time during the day. Reports of this type of incident were also made by inhabitants of the south of Pericos, namely, on San

230

Jorge and San Patricio street where gang fights with stones were reported during daytime.

The second incident Alicia mentioned had happened recently, just prior to the research period, and it was a high-impact crime that involved fire arms; however, there were no official records of the incident.

Last Saturday, people on a black truck shot at some youngsters [around half a dozen] that were hanging out there [Santa Anita and Santa Cecilia Street, inside an abandoned house], they were probably doing drugs or drinking alcohol, apparently without disturbing anyone… but they must have done something, because here people don‟t just shoot at you… Only one of the youngsters there was injured, but I was very scared, since my brother was with them… (interview Alicia, 2015). Feelings of insecurity are exacerbated in Los Pericos due to some inhabitants‟ use of drugs in public areas and, mostly, constant robbery and assaults throughout the community. This has caused inhabitants to change their use of space in diverse ways. Additionally, taxi drivers have stopped going into the colonia, and drop passengers off in Rodolfo Landeros Gallegos Street, forcing inhabitants to walk home at night. Clarisa elaborated: Many people in the colonia have stopped going out at night altogether. I don‟t. I have never been afraid, but for example, taxi drivers won‟t drop you off at your house, the farthest they will go is Rodolfo street. They used to say that they didn‟t like coming into the colonia because there was no pavement, and now that streets are paved they say that they‟ll get robbed. (Clarisa interview, 2015). There is a slight discrepancy between participants‟ reports of being a victim of a crime, 48.5 per cent (Figure 7.2) and a higher percentage of respondents feeling secure in the area, 57.1 per cent (Figure 7.1). This is probably related to the type of violence reported; for example, by witnessing incidents of gang-related violence, instead of being directly attacked, or respondents being assaulted and losing „non-valuable‟ things like shoes and clothes. These incidents are seen as habitual and, in some cases, insignificant by respondents, leading them to prefer not to report them. Consequently, real crime figures in Los Pericos are hard to grasp. For example, reports of domestic violence were common from respondents, and were corroborated by the NGO CECADEC. However, domestic

231 violence and other crimes and incidents go unreported and do not appear in official statistics.

According to respondents there are two reasons for this. On the one hand, residents distrust the police and see the process as cumbersome and useless since criminals are rarely punished for their felonies. On the other hand, the normalisation of violence in this area has an impact on respondents‟ decisions to report a crime, as they tend to trivialise being robbed or assaulted, since for them it is „the daily bread‟. These crimes, however, have a relatively small impact on inhabitants‟ perception of insecurity in the colonia, and it explains why more inhabitants feel secure despite having been a victim of a crime. So in other words, although almost half of the survey respondents have been a victim of a crime, almost 60 per cent feel secure in the area. Complicating matters further, even if respondents maintain they feel safe, many have limited several activities due to fear of being a victim of a crime.

Since most crime – excluding domestic violence – happens in public areas of the community, insecurity and violence have had an impact on the way residents use urban space. Inhabitants limit their circulation after certain hours, or accept being robbed as a natural consequence of transiting after sunset in the colonia. Ultimately, inhabitants avoid certain areas in the colonia, and going out at night. Places associated with violence and insecurity and changes in the use of space will be explored in the following section, identifying the areas and the characteristics, according to respondents, that make these places insecure.

Physical space interventions and deficient infrastructure The irregular topography of the area – with a steep incline in both directions from Rodolfo Landeros Gallegos street – makes inhabitants feel insecure in particular areas at the north and south of the colonia. These places were first mentioned by participants during interviews and surveys, and afterwards, they were depicted thought participatory maps and auto-photography. The areas consistently mentioned by respondents such as the northern limit of Pericos where the „laguna‟ at Santa Irene street is; Santa Anita street; Cultura Otomi Avenue; and the arroyo at the south limit of Pericos on Saxofon street, are explored in this section. In addition, the physical characteristics of these areas are

232 explored to understand what makes them insecure, through participants‟ impressions and also by ultimately analysing how deficiencies in urban planning processes generate problem areas in the colonia.

In the north of Los Pericos, inhabitants identify the limits of the colonia as particularly insecure, at the „laguna‟ [lagoon] on Santa Irene Street (Photo 7.1). Several of the participants reported being assaulted or robbed when walking through this area, since it is solitary and lacks public lighting. Sofia observed:

All of the area of the laguna is very ugly… you will be robbed there, my daughter was robbed of a little gold necklace I gave her. She used to walk through there, but it is very dark because there is no public lighting, and „vagos‟ linger there. I have to wait for her now and we walk together back home because I don‟t want her to get assaulted again or something worse (Sofia interview, 2015).

Photo 7.1 Laguna in Los Pericos, north of the Colonia.

Source: author, 2015.

Sofia identified this area and others which make her feel insecure through a participatory map (Figure 7.3, see key in annex 7) and auto-photography (Photo 7.2). For her, the south area of Los Pericos, and the neighbouring colonias, are places she avoids because she feels insecure. These are areas she is not familiar with and she has heard that:

In the south area there are many robberies and „malvivientes‟, they rob houses because of the abandoned houses, they jump from one house to the other… I avoid altogether going into Miradores and Los Laureles [neighbouring colonias] because I don‟t know that colonia or anyone who lives there, I don‟t like it (Sofia interview, 2015).

233

Figure 7.3 Sofia's participatory map

Source: Participatory map by Sofia, 2015

Photo 7.2 Laguna at the north limit of Los Pericos

Source: auto-photography by Sofia, 2015

Other areas in the north section of Pericos were avoided by respondents for security reasons. Santa Anita street is a place avoided by inhabitants, identified in participatory mapping (Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5). This street is the location where the second incident that Alicia mentioned happened, and is a problem area, mentioned by the community. The reason given is that a conflictive 234 family inhabits this block, who are apparently very violent, picking fights with neighbours over small incidents, robbing, and selling drugs. The family is known as „Los Pelones‟ and inhabitants generally avoid walking through the surrounding streets and even avoiding contact such as seeing or speaking to their children, let alone the adults of the family. Specific streets, such as San Isidro Street at the south of Pericos are also identified as dangerous, either due to conflictive families or drug selling points, where youngsters hang out.

Figure 7.4 Clarisa’s participatory map

Source: Participatory map by Clarisa, 2015

Most of the insecure streets mentioned by participants have been locations for robbery, assault or gang fights. The streets mentioned by participants share some common traits, such as lack of public lighting and an abundance of abandoned houses, creating deserted areas at night. These characteristics were often mentioned by participants to describe „insecure streets‟ such as Ave Cultura Otomi (running north to south) (Photo 7.5), and Saxofon Street (Photo 7.6). Another area identified as problematic at times is Linea Verde, regardless of

235 being in good condition with public lighting and with well maintained areas. This is because respondents mentioned that gang fights often happen on Linea Verde.

As mentioned before, Linea Verde (Photo 7.3 and Photo 7.4) has acquired double significance for the inhabitants of Pericos. On the one hand, it represents the fulfilment of a need: the provision of recreational infrastructure, an issue identified as priority by participants. It is both a meeting, and relatively safe, place where families can spend time and kids play. There are no other places in the neighbourhood to do this. On the other hand, it has become a feared place when the sun goes down. People are afraid to walk through Linea Verde when it is dark because there may be youngsters consuming drugs or gang fights going on. In this sense, negative actors have appropriated the space and restrict the possibilities of the population for green areas and moving around. Urban upgrading in Linea Verde aimed at reducing and preventing violence, and increasing safety. Linea Verde‟s first and foremost purpose was to upgrade neighbourhoods, improve living and social standards, and empower local residents, as one of several critical components of a more comprehensive strategy to reduce and prevent violence in urban areas. Nonetheless, the lack of involvement of the communities in the process hindered opportunities for positive outcomes.

Photo 7.3 Linea Verde, from Rodolfo Landeros Streets looking south.

Source: author, 2015.

236

Photo 7.4 End of Linea Verde

Source: auto-photography Itzel, 2015.

Another major issue in the Colonia is that, as uninhabited houses prevail, youngsters get in them to destroy what they can and consume drugs, according to respondents. These houses were described by neighbours as „a latent danger‟, and were consistent with the areas pointed by respondents as insecure, mainly through Ave Cultura Otomi and some streets at the south of the colonia where the majority of the houses are unoccupied. On the participatory mapping exercise, the areas mentioned by inhabitants were similar, for example, Clarisa‟s and Iztel (Figure 7.4 and Figure 7.5). Clarisa stated that

I walk everywhere, but with care. I will go through Santa Anita street as long as there is still some daylight, I would avoid passing that street at night. I don‟t go often all to the way to the north [Santa Irene] or to the south [through Ave Cultura Otomi], because I‟m not comfortable there (Clarisa interview, 2015)

Photo 7.5 Ave Cultura Otomi

Source: auto-photography Clarisa, 2015.

237

Similarly, Itzel, who lives in the south part of Los Pericos, pointed out in her map places like Ave Cultura Otomi; the south limit of the colonia, Saxofon Street and San Patricio street (Photo 7.7); and generally the southeast area of Pericos. She also mantioned that “it is all uninhabited houses there” and that “I avoid walking through Cultura Otomi [Avenue] because the grass gets too high and it is too dark at night, you cannot see who is coming”. Caution was advised by Itzel when walking through this area; she specially suggested avoiding some „tienditas‟ in this area of Pericos, particularly throughout San Rafael street – parallel to Ave Cultura Otomi– since she has heard that these are drugs selling points and „vagos‟ linger there.

Figure 7.5 Itzel participatory mapping

Source: participatory mapping by Itzel, 2015

238

Photo 7.6 Saxofon Street, south limit of Los Pericos

Source: auto-photography by Itzel, 2015

Photo 7.7 San Patricio street east

Source: auto-photography by Itzel, 2015

These associations of places as insecure and violent are reflected in the changing uses of respondents. For example, most of the neighbours limit their circulation within the community during darkness. “After 8 pm, we rarely go outside…it gets too dangerous” (interview Itzel, 2015). This is due to the fact that drug consumption in public areas at night is very common in the colonia. Other activities avoided were allowing young children to go out at night, carrying large amounts of cash, using public transport, wearing jewellery and going for a walk (Figure 7.6). Additionally, 34.2 per cent of respondents said they often change routes to transit through the community due to insecurity (Figure 7.7), and 48.5 per cent said they avoid certain areas at night (Figure 7.8).

239

Figure 7.6 Activities avoided for fear of being victim of a crime in Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 7.7 Percentage of respondents who said change routes through the community due to insecurity, Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

240

Figure 7.8 Percentage of respondents who said they avoid certain areas at night due to insecurity in Los Pericos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Inhabitants of Los Pericos are thus very limited in terms of the activities they avoid due to fear of crime, violence and insecurity. Similar to the previous peripheral neighbourhood in Culiacan, in Los Pericos many manifestations of violence are present. Additionally, despite large infrastructure investment and public space renovation as part of a physical space response to violence – through the implementation of Linea Verde – a large section of inhabitants still perceive their community as insecure. Other issues were also similar to Culiacan, such as the appearance of violence chains, and the normalisation of violence. These will be expanded upon further in chapter 8.

7.2 Violence, insecurity and urban space: perceptions in the city centre

This section explores the incidence of violence as identified by respondents in surveys and interviews. Violence in Barrio de San Marcos is mostly associated with La Feria by respondents. The most repeated security- related concern in the area was alcohol and drugs consumption in public areas, frequent assaults and robbery throughout the neighbourhood. Also, in some streets, participants mentioned car theft and vandalism. Another issue stressed by respondents was police abuse, mainly during the Feria.

241

Despite official data classifying Barrio de San Marcos as the most dangerous neighbourhood of the city in 2012 (Procuraduria General de Justicia del Estado, 2012), discussed further below, it was reported to be a relatively safe area, according to inhabitants. This is mainly related to San Marcos‟ historical heritage and location. However, even if San Marcos is considered a „safer neighbourhood‟, several violence-related incidents were reported by participants. Some of these incidents were related to the period of La Feria such as alcohol and drug consumption and property damage; these incidents are limited to the perimeter of the Feria and a small area outside of it. Other manifestations of violence and crime, however, were reported in the periphery of the neighbourhood, such as vehicle theft, assaults and robbery. Some of these issues remained after the Feria passed, according to respondents. During Feria time, participants mentioned that:

San Marcos is a traditional barrio, so it looks like nothing happens here. And it is usually very calm and pleasant, until Feria time comes. Then you‟ll see people consuming alcohol outside the designated areas, and from there everything goes wrong, it could be people fighting, or men harassing women… I just don‟t like San Marcos during the Feria (interview Adrian, 2015). According to official data, the city centre and particularly Barrio de San Marcos are the areas of Aguascalientes with the highest number of crimes and offences. For analysis, these violence-related issues are classified in three categories: administrative offences [faltas administrativas], state crime [delito del fuero comun] and federal crime [delito del fuero federal]. Administrative offences are the most common ones in Barrio de San Marcos39.

In Barrio de San Marcos, the most common administrative offences are aggression, disturbances and scandal in public areas, alcohol consumption in public areas, quarrelsome behaviour, and harassment. State crime reports include injuries, property damage, robbery and vehicle theft. Even when 30 per cent of

39 In Mexico, offenses are classified as minor or major depending on the type of damage they cause and severity. In this case, it is important to distinguish between criminal offenses, which are regulated by the penal code, and other types of illegal behaviour such as administrative offences involving minor sanctions, which are governed by different legal systems in every state.

242 respondents mentioned being a victim of a crime in the area (Figure 7.10), these offences and crimes appear to have a relatively low impact in security perception, since 80 per cent of inhabitants said they consider their community as safe to walk, transit or use public transport in (Figure 7.9).

Figure 7.9 Security perception in Barrio de San Marcos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Figure 7.10 Crime victimisation, Barrio de San Marcos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Similar comments were expressed by other respondents in San Marcos where inhabitants stress the fact that even if they know crimes have been committed, they feel secure in the area, for example:

243

Overall the neighbourhood is safe, there are streets that I do not like and I avoid, such as Rayon Street. This street is not very safe, you cannot go out at night mainly because there are many „vagos‟ [unemployed young males] there, I think those are the ones robbing cars. But I often go to restaurants in Pani [Arturo J. Pani street] and I feel perfectly safe walking back home, even at night (interview Catalina, 2015).

Violence manifestations and spaces of violence and insecurity As Catalina mentioned, insecurity in Barrio de San Marcos is linked to particular streets, some of which are deserted at night and lack adequate public lighting. Generally speaking, there were few security related issues reported by respondents in Barrio de San Marcos. The most common complaint of respondents was related to alcohol consumption in public areas, and this is directly linked to the zoning uses in Barrio de San Marcos. In the neighbourhood there are some streets, such as Arturo J. Pani and Nieto, that house several bars and restaurants, meaning inhabitants complain about noise and disturbances happening late at night.

According to Adrian who has lived in Barrio de San Marcos for over 40 years, violent incidents have happened rarely, while administrative offences are more common. For him, the greatest security concerns relate to police abuses and insecurity in some streets:

I have never been assaulted or robbed here, I can even walk at night in Jardin de San Marcos; it is very safe here. I‟ve heard things, like people get assaulted at night, but I only feel insecure when the Feria is going on, there is too much people coming and going, and then there is a lot of police presence, which is not always a good thing… I‟ve been „asked‟ for money [by the police] in a not very polite way, if you know what I mean, or they threaten to take me to „barandillas‟ [provisional police detention] and I hadn‟t done anything. They do as they please here during La Feria, they [police officers] will „assault‟ you and you won‟t even notice, they‟ve taken money from me, even my wallet while they search me, they are the ones making me feel insecure (interview Adrian, 2015). Adrian‟s comment was repeated a couple of times by other respondents; people in Barrio de San Marcos distrust the police because they have been victims of police „asking for money‟ in order to avoid unjustified detention. This was a common complaint from inhabitants, but they sustain that police mainly do this to

244

„drunken people‟ or people who do not inhabit the Barrio de San Marcos. Other than police abuse, there were no further reports of violence-related incidents in Barrio de San Marcos. Insecurity, according to participants, is caused by administrative offences which take place in particular places, mostly due to and near La Feria. These problematic areas will be described in detail in the following section.

Overall, then, San Marcos was reported to be relatively safe neighbourhood; however, a few spaces in Barrio de San Marcos were identified as insecure, where violence-related incidents and administrative offences were reported. These areas share some attributes which will be explored in this section. Insecure places were mentioned by participants during surveys and interviews, but, most importantly, these were portrayed in auto-photographs and illustrated in participatory maps. Specific streets will be analysed in this section, such as Nieto street, Rincon street, Rayon street and a problematic street adjacent to the Barrio, Allende street.

In Barrio de San Marcos, most of the places respondents identified as insecure are associated with La Feria, where alcohol and drug consumption in public areas is usual. One of the problematic areas consistently mentioned by respondents was Rincon street, due to vehicle theft. Participants expressed:

We get scared, and we try not to go out at night, we‟ve been hearing things lately, how neighbours‟ cars are stolen at night, it might happen throughout San Marcos, but having happenings here [on Rincon street] is different. We [she and her husband] are an elderly couple, so we have to be careful (interview, Teresa, 2015). Inhabitants of Rincon Street linked violence and insecurity issues with the zoning of the area; since one section of the street is mostly used for education, it tends to get lonely and dark in some areas, after working hours. Also, as Teresa mentioned, most of the inhabitants of this area of Barrio de San Marcos are elderly. Two other problematic issues in this street is that alcohol selling points abound (Photo 7.10 and Photo 7.11), particularly at the corner of Nieto and Rincon street and, secondly, there are many blind walls with little natural surveillance by residents (Photo 7.12).

245

In the case of Rayon street, inhabitants mentioned that perceptions of insecurity have increased since one side of the street is the back of Expo Plaza, an area which is deserted and covered in graffiti (Photo 7.8and Photo 7.9). Also, there is an alcohol selling point at the beginning of the street where, according to neighbours, “„vagos‟ linger and do drugs, just waiting to see who they can rob or attack” (interview, Catalina, 2015). This area was illustrated as insecure and a place to avoid both in Adrian's (Figure 7.11) and Catalina‟s (Figure 7.12) participatory maps; it was stressed during interviews with inhabitants of the street that assaults and attempted rape are common. The street is identified as problematic even by inhabitants who live far from the area, within Barrio de San Marcos.

Photo 7.8 Section of Rayon street.

Source: author, 2015

Photo 7.9 Section of Rayon street, back of ExpoPlaza.

Source: author, 2015

246

Figure 7.11 Nieto and Rayon street circled in red

Source: participatory map by Adrian, 2015

Photo 7.10 Alcohol selling point in Pedro de Alba and Navarrete street

Source: auto-photography Adrian, 2015

247

Photo 7.11 Alcohol selling points at the left in Nieto and Rincon street

Source: auto-photography Adrian, 2015

Photo 7.12 Rincon and Ignacio Lomas street

Source: auto-photography Adrian, 2015

According to Catalina‟s participatory map, there were streets she avoided because she believed they were dangerous, such as Nieto street, Azteca street, two adjacent streets to Jardin de San Marcos and, specially, a street on the limits of Barrio de San Marcos, Allende street. There are some attributes these streets share, namely 1) zoning use – educational and commerce – which makes streets deserted at night, 2) areas with no public lighting and, 3) overall lack of maintenance, as in Allende Street (Photo 7.13 and Photo 7.14).

248

Figure 7.12, Rayon street and ExpoPlaza circled in red

Source: Catalina‟s participatory map, 2015

Photo 7.13 Allende street, looking towards Plaza de Toros San Marcos

Source: auto-photography Catalina, 2015

249

Photo 7.14 Allende and Mariano Matamoros street

Source: auto-photography Catalina, 2015

Barrio de San Marcos is a central neighbourhood of great importance for the development of Aguascalientes both in historic and economic aspects. Nevertheless, and despite it having better infrastructure and basic service provision compared with Los Pericos, there are problem areas, identified by respondents. Most of the insecurity issues respondents mentioned are linked to La Feria; some other areas identified as insecure share attributes of buildings which encourage insecurity, such as lack of maintenance, graffiti, poor public lighting and zoning use. Additionally, due to the fact that the people transiting the area increases enormously during Feria time, neighbours become distrustful towards strangers. Another contributory factor is that some inhabitants rent their house during the Feria period, thus social cohesion is hindered since they do not know who their neighbours are.

Regardless of whether they consider the neighbourhood safe or not, respondents indicated that their spatial mobility becomes restricted; going out at night and going for a walk were mentioned as activities avoided for fear of being a victim of a crime, along with carrying large amounts of cash and wearing jewellery (Figure 7.13).

250

Figure 7.13 Activities avoided for fear of being victim of a crime, Barrio de San Marcos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

7.3 A comparison of two neighbourhoods in Aguascalientes

Similarities and differences in the two case studies in Aguascalientes can be explored using three recurring themes, as in Culiacan. Firstly, perceptions of violence, and differences in the types of violence; secondly, planning and infrastructure implications; and thirdly, changes in the use of space.

Perceptions of violence and insecurity

According to official reports, the city centre of Aguascalientes and, principally, Barrio de San Marcos is considered the most dangerous sector of the city. This, however, is contradictory to what inhabitants of both neighbourhoods remark (Figure 7.14). As in Culiacan, inhabitants of the periphery consider their neighbourhood to be more insecure than what inhabitants of the central community think (Figure 7.15). This might be related to the evident differences in the types of crime reported in each community and its effect on perceptions of security. For example, in Barrio de San Marcos, more administrative offences were reported, and in some cases related to the built environment, eg educational and commercial zoning uses which translated to low density areas, desolate at night. The existence of the Feria de San Marcos further exacerbated problem

251 areas such as bars. For this reason, the area of Barrio de San Marcos is analysed using CPTED theory in chapter 8.

In Los Pericos, on the other hand, several categories of crime and a myriad of violent incidents were mentioned, as well as inhabitants‟ perceptions that these are linked. The fact there are many apparently linked violence manifestations, and that these appear to be embedded into contextual (and institutional) settings, allows a comparison of the two peripheral communities in chapter 8, using the violence chains concept.

Similar to 5 de Febrero, the inhabitants of Pericos avoid reporting crimes, due to the inaction of local authorities, particularly the police. This might be another important fact to consider in inhabitants‟ construction of insecurity, since in neither neighbourhood do residents trust the authorities; in Barrio de San Marcos this is due to police abuse.

Figure 7.14 Comparison of respondents' opinion about outsiders’ perception of neighbourhoods, Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

252

Figure 7.15 Comparison of security perceptions in colonia Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos, Aguascalientes

Source: author, based on surveys from fieldwork 2015.

Planning and infrastructure implications

The case of Aguascalientes offers a good analytical standpoint for examining the role of active planning and perceptions of violence and insecurity. While many insecurity issues in Los Pericos were addressed by Convive Feliz and Linea Verde through active planning, these approaches to violence show marginal success in improving feelings of security, despite an urban upgrading of the built environment having been enacted, loosely using CPTED principles. These approaches are generally employed to address situational or opportunity crime, and ideally would lead to a decrease in the incidence of violence and enforce urban security through both effective urban planning and governance. However, the lack of involvement of communities in the process and the overall absence of community-based approaches failed to reduce risk factors and strengthen social capital. Interventions like Linea Verde were also prevented from reducing insecurity. In addition to this, the effect gangs have on the socio-spatial configuration of the community and perceptions of insecurity, seems to have been disregarded in the implementation of the project.

In Los Pericos, active planning has, in a way, exacerbated feelings of insecurity, as well as further enhanced opportunities for crime, since the crucial part of the community in designing and implementing these approaches was

253 overlooked. An absence of planning, on the other hand, has allowed the proliferation of abandoned houses to offer spaces conducive to crime. To some extent, the lack of pavements, lighting, and overall maintenance of the neighbourhood similarly impacts negatively on inhabitants‟ feelings of security. Absent planning allows uncared for places emerge, such as the case of the north and south limits of Los Pericos. In the same way, in Barrio de San Marcos, active planning has allowed and incentivised zoning uses which create issues and even violence and insecurity within the community, mostly related to La Feria.

Since the impact of violence is most intense at the local level, improving planning processes and including community participation in these processes could have helped to identify issues related to violence and crime. This requires the involvement of community members and organisations to improve social cohesion and collective efficacy, as well as rejecting cultures of violence that can become entrenched in communities.

Changes in the use of urban space

The type of violent manifestations and conditions of the built environment differ in these two neighbourhoods. However, perceptions of insecurity and changes in uses of space, in terms of spatial mobility restrictions, are fairly similar. Los Pericos‟ inhabitants are limited in the use of public space, particularly in the case of Linea Verde, where they are able to interact in public areas only at certain times of day. The appearance and ubiquity of gang fights affects negatively the community‟s perception of security. Going out at night, allowing young children to go out, going for a walk and even using public transport were activities avoided for fear of being a victim of a crime, as reported by respondents in los Pericos. Similarly, in Barrio de San Marcos, while the nature of violence-related incidents was that of administrative offences, respondents reported avoiding going out at night and going for a walk, along with carrying large amounts of cash and wearing jewellery.

7.4 Conclusion

The main aim of this chapter was to present the urban violence and insecurity findings in two community case studies for the city of Aguascalientes,

254

Los Pericos and Barrio de San Marcos. The findings depicted inhabitants‟ perceptions about manifestations of violence, perceptions of insecurity, urban space, and the role of planning processes. Violent incidents and crime reports varied significantly, as well as perceptions of insecurity. Apparent links between violence manifestations were consistently mentioned by respondents in Los Pericos, and similar to the peripheral case of Culiacan, violence was normalised.

The conditions of urban space and built environment are an important variable. In Los Pericos, inhabitants‟ perceptions of security are affected by the configuration of certain spaces which community members conceive as insecure, which in some cases facilitates the actual occurrence of violence, as in the case of Linea Verde, and south and north limits of the colonia. In Barrio de San Marcos planning processes and overall maintenance of the built environment have a more positive effect on inhabitants‟ feelings of security, where well-illuminated areas and public spaces in good conditions are common. This also has to do with the nature of violent crime reported. Administrative offences and low impact crimes were reported in Barrios de San Marcos, which have a low effect on inhabitants‟ perceptions of security. Overall, a large number of respondents maintain they feel safe, regardless of these violence manifestations, since these are acknowledged as minor offences or economically driven, but with a marginal impact on security perceptions.

In the final section of this chapter, the settlements were compared using three recurring themes: perceptions of violence, planning and infrastructure, and changes in the use of space. The following chapter expands on the analysis of findings, expanding the logic of comparing within cities to between and across cities.

255

CHAPTER 8 Planning, violence, insecurity and the urban space: an analytical comparison

The violence that tears at the fabric of the lives of the men and women living at the urban margins has its origins both in economic and political structures as well as the actions and inactions of states and established political actors. (Auyero et al., 2015:1)

Introduction

In previous chapters the empirical evidence of four case studies in two Mexican cities regarding perceptions of urban violence and insecurity was presented. Some comparisons were made, at city level, regarding recurring themes: residents‟ experience and perceptions of violence; planning, infrastructure and insecurity; and, changes in the use of urban space. This chapter aims to deepen the analysis of case studies, both between and within cities, to shed light on the interactions between urban violence, planning and urban space. Firstly, a comparison is made between cities, discussing commonalities and differences between Culiacan and Aguascalientes. For my research, the comparisons within cities provided some insights regarding how cities are affected by and respond to violence, which are expanded by comparing neighbourhood level cases based on a peripheral/peripheral and central/central logic. Following the citation above, this cross-comparison of case studies allows, on the one hand, scrutinising findings and looking at planning processes as the „structures‟ permitting urban violence as much as social and economic processes, while, on the other hand, analysing planning „actions and inactions‟.

The chapter reflects on the framework discussed in chapter 2 – an adapted ecological framework for violence – in order to test it against the findings presented in the previous chapters, considering risk factors for violence and how these are present throughout the neighbourhoods in order to analyse the interactions of factors leading to violence. The role of planning in mediating the relation between urban violence, insecurity and urban space is emphasised. The insights from the comparisons made in this chapter point to important implications for the ways in which planning processes occur in Mexico; and how violence is understood and conceptualised in the design of physical environment responses to violence.

256

The chapter is structured as follows. The first section analyses and compares the findings from Culiacan and Aguascalientes, at city level. The following two sections compare peripheral neighbourhoods, Los Pericos and 5 de Febrero, and the central ones, Barrio de San Marcos and Colonia Centro, correspondingly. The sections compare communities using concepts from the literarature that best seem to help analyse the findings that emerged from research: violence chains in peripheral neighbourhoods and CPTED in central ones. In fact, these concepts are not mutually exclusive; both concepts can be used to analyse the case of Los Pericos, for example. With this comparison insights from the empirical chapters can be advanced. Based oin this analysis, some reflections on the role of planning and the implications for urban space and violence-related processes are presented in section 8.4, before concluding in section 8.5.

8.1 Culiacan and Aguascalientes

Case study communities were compared at city level in chapters 6 and 7, noting differences and similarities between peripheral and central case-study communities within each city. However, it is important to point out some differences at city level, that is, between the cases in Culiacan and Aguascalientes. In line with my research objectives and questions, selecting two case-study cities allowed comparing across these different urban contexts and respondents‟ perceptions of violence manifestations and insecurity; what this implies for the use and conceptions of urban space; and how different city and regional planning contexts affect these interactions.

Firstly, some underlying issues about how violence is understood and represented in different contexts need to be discussed. Gathering official statistics on violence and crime was significantly easier in Aguascalientes, while in Culiacan it was not possible to obtain these at all. The unavailability of official data meant that second-hand data had to be used; the data provided by civil society organisations working in the city of Culiacan was used to some extent to fill this void. Interestingly, according to this data high impact crimes were often reported in the peripheries of this city, whereas authorities refused several requests by different conduits to provide official accounts of violence and

257 insecurity in these colonias (5 de Febrero and Colonia Centro). What is less clear is why authorities in Culiacan see the public disclosure of crime-related statistics as a potential risk.

As discussed before data unavailability brings about two issues: availability and reliability of data. This was one of the reasons why surveys were conducted; although these did not attempt to gather data on the type of crimes committed, but on the impact these had on respondents‟ perceptions and uses of urban space. The data gathering was thus aimed at collecting primarily residents‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity, with reference to specific areas of the community in order to assess the extent and effects of perceptions of insecurity on the urban space. These allowed „snapshots‟ in support of a more extensive „picture‟ of perceptions of both violence and insecurity in the communities than those offered by official accounts and statistics – and complementing and in some cases supplementing whatever available information was provided by authorities.

The second issue, data reliability elucidates a theme that was brought up constantly and consistently in all four communities: crime underreporting. This was expressed by respondents, alongside their distrust in police and authorities. As noted elsewhere in the literature (Heinemann and Verner, 2006), crime underreporting among residents of low income communities is more severe for types of violence such as domestic violence and child abuse. The empirical evidence from my research shows that this is also the case for economically driven violence, such as robbery of small amounts of cash, jewellery and property damage. Low-income areas also display high levels of impunity (Heinmann and Verner, 2006); which is also the case for the peripheral neighbourhoods in this study. A respondent from 5 de Febrero illustrated how criminals are known, identified, and picked up by police, only to be released an hour or so later, “knowing who pointed a finger towards them”, which allows them to retaliate. This was the case for both peripheral neighbourhoods, in Culiacan and Aguascalientes.

For the central communities the reasons behind crime underreporting were fairly similar. In Barrio de San Marcos, respondents also referred to distrust in

258 authorities, with several accounts where the police were the perpetrators of abuses and, in some cases, crimes.

It must be acknowledged that comparing two cities in Mexico is complex. Culiacan and Aguascalientes were chosen for their similarities in terms of population and economic growth, and with the particularity of representing „extremes‟ at the violence spectrum (taking into account homicides; see chapter 3). Generally, Culiacan is perceived and portrayed as a very violent city. This is true if homicide rates only are taken as showing what a „violent‟ city entails. In the peripheral community of this city, reports of assassinations, forced disappearances and other types of fatal violence were made. In the city centre of Culiacan, respondents reported more economically-driven crimes such as vehicle theft, robberies and assaults, in particular streets and public areas. Altogether, in Culiacan violence manifestations are more complex than the situation normally portrayed by homicide rates alone (even if the levels of violence are still high).

More low-impact crimes were reported in Aguascalientes: robberies, assaults and administrative offences. As in Culiacan, perceptions of violence and insecurity differ from the periphery to the city centre; Barrio de San Marcos reported mostly administrative offences and economic-related crimes – alcohol and drug consumption in public areas, harassment and vehicle theft. In Los Pericos the crimes reported were fairly similar to those in 5 de Febrero: domestic violence, child abuse and some of higher impact, such as organised crime in the form of gangs – and gang fights in public areas. In an apparently „safer‟ city like Aguascalientes (in terms of homicide rates), perceptions of insecurity in peripheral areas are similar to more violent cities like Culiacan. The evidence shows, however, that all four communities studied share similarities regarding perceptions of insecurity. That is, even when only the peripheral neighbourhood of Culiacan regularly reported higher impact crimes – namely homicides and forced disappearances – all four communities reported perceptions of insecurity as high.

Some commonalities can be pointed out from the evidence of previous chapters regarding the characteristics of the physical environments where people feel insecure. The places where respondents referred to as insecure were usually

259 dark, solitary, and poorly maintained spaces, and where there were fewer „eyes on the street‟, alluding to having fewer neighbours. The link between perceptions of insecurity, or fear of crime, and the built environment has been discussed on a theoretical level in chapter 2. Multiple theories were discussed, namely Situational Crime Prevention and Newman‟s (1972) ideas about defensible space and Jacobs‟ (1961) „eyes on the street‟, which have been influential to planners.

The empirical evidence suggests that there are some limitations to physical environment approaches to reduce violence, stressing the role planning processes play in these interventions. For this reason, planning and the conditions of the built environment – including infrastructure – offer an interesting point of comparison between cities, and communities. In Aguascalientes, the planning system appears to be more sophisticated; including participatory mechanisms and consultation, projects are developed taking residents into account, to some extent. In Culiacan, as discussed in chapter 4 (see section 4.2) the planning processes seem to be limited and somewhat fragmented. Overall, planning processes tend to favour the city centres in the provision of services and infrastructure; in contrast the peripheries seem to be neglected. The processes of urban development peipheral areas followed were similar: illegal settling of residents then a reluctant gradual provision of services and infrastructure by authorities. In both cities, nonetheless, planning processes tend to be warded off from residents‟ involvement in the construction of the urban space.

Two key concepts emerged from the comparison within cities and help in the analysis between peripheral and central communities. In the peripheries, the concept of violence chains (Moser and Horn, 2011) resonated with respondents‟ idea that there are many types of violence and that these are linked and embedded in specific contexts (areas of the community). Meanwhile, in the city centres, the concept of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) (give a ref here) seemed congruent with the importance residents place on the conditions and role of the built environment in their security. The differential application of these two concepts in this study is based on the focus of „violence chains‟on the processes surrounding the appearance of violence. In central neighbourhoods, the nature of the violence is mostly economically and property driven: there are no „components of the chain‟ (see below). Conversely, CPTED as a more normative

260 and built environment oriented concept is suited to such contexts where formal planning plays a stronger role; however, it also be used in peripheral neighbourhoods.

These two concepts will thus be used to guide the analytical comparison between communities in the following two sections based on the following framework (Table 8.1).

Table 8.1 Analytical framework used in each community

5 de Febrero Violence chains Culiacan Colonia Centro CPTED

Los Pericos Violence chains Aguascalientes Barrio de San CPTED Marcos

Source: author, 2016

The following sections present the analytical comparison of peripheral and central neighbourhoods based on the evidence from chapters 6 and 7, and following the research questions and objectives outlined in chapter 3.

8.2 Peripheral neighbourhoods: violence chains

Clear parallels and interesting insights can be drawn between the two peripheral case studies based on the application of the violence chains concept. In both neighbourhoods there were more reports of violence and crime, and more varieties of these, than in central areas. Respondents‟ perceptions of violence manifestations in 5 de Febrero and Los Pericos are fairly similar; many types of violence were mentioned, including child neglect and abuse, domestic violence, and economic manifestations of violence, ie assaults, robbery, and property damage. Likewise, respondents feel predominantly insecure in the community and they avoid similar types of activities due to the fear of being victims of crime. For this reason, and respondents‟ constant perception that violent events are linked processes, the concept of violence chains became evident in peripheral neighbourhoods.

261

As discussed in chapter 2, the concept of violence chains (Moser and Horn, 2011) is a useful analytical frame for identifying the interconnectedness of different manifestations of violence. There are three levels of analysis or components of the violence chain: the different manifestations of violence; the processes which configure these together; and how these might be embedded within broader institutional and contextual factors (Moser and Horn, 2011). The three components of the chain allow analytical comparison of the types of violence in peripheral settlements, paying particular attention to the „triggering contexts‟ and institutional planning processes. The concept is used as a guiding framework in these settlements rather than to analyse the exact dynamic of the causes and interconnectedness of violence.

Violence chains: different violence manifestations and linkages

The first level of analysis relates to components of the chain or the most common forms of violence. In 5 de Febrero as in Los Pericos, these are: domestic violence – violence against women and child abuse; economic violence – such as robbery, assault and burglary; and criminal organised violence – in the form of kidnapping and murder (as recorded in secondary data in 5 de Febrero (Circo Volador, 2014) and gang activity (in Los Pericos). The second level of analysis is the way different manifestations of violence are articulated, or the processes that lead to them (Moser and Horn, 2011), which are harder to discern. An example would be if an abused wife neglects or abuses her child and if her child knows drugs or fire-arms are easy to get in the colonia, leading to the child‟s participation in drug violence or gun crime. Child neglect, family breakdown, and drug availability are considered by respondents as links in the chain, especially when drugs are consumed in public spaces, which is the case in both colonias.

Another issue that entrenches these processes and links the different forms of violence in these settings is the normalisation of violence that exists in peripheral neighbourhoods. According to Winton (2000:167), normalisation of violence refers to a “system of norms, values or attitudes which allow, or even stimulate, the use of violence” in resolving conflicts or relations with others. This is particularly important in the context of the peripheries, since in the case of Culiacan, normalisation of violence might be related to narco-culture, which

262 then speaks of a „culture of violence‟ or broad acceptability of violence (Vogelman and Lewis, 1993). In the case of Los Pericos, this same normalisation of violence has to do with social violence in the form of gangs. Here the value system (Winton, 2005) is similarly seen as a way of obtaining social status and belonging to a group.

Violence chains: contextual embeddedness

The third level of analysis of the violence chain is how these processes are embedded into and could be triggered by the contextual settings of the colonias. Given the neglected conditions of public spaces despite authorities‟ attempts at improvement, and the surrender of public spaces to criminal actors, processes of violence are apparently embedded into institutional and contextual settings. This can be exemplified in both colonias where spatial interventions to reduce and prevent violence have had negative effects on respondents‟ perceptions of security. These interventions can also be linked to the concepts used in chapters 6 and 7, active and passive planning.

For example, las canchas in 5 de Febrero in Culiacan were the subject of interventions by SEDESOL, aiming to provide quality urban recreational areas (see chapter 4 for physical space violence reduction strategies, and chapter 6 for details on the programme application in 5 de Febrero). This intervention backfired and far from being used by residents, las canchas were one of the first areas to be pointed out as insecure in my research. Respondents maintained that the area had been appropriated by young criminals who gathered there to use drugs and sometimes assault the passers-by. Furthermore, participants sustained that the constant deterioration that occurred in public areas through the community – beyond the cancha – contributed to the appearance of opportunistic violence and crime. This, adding to the fact that those responsible for those acts are not held accountable or punished in anyway, further reinforces their ability to commit other crimes. In other words, deterioration attracts vandalism, and vandalism attracts crime and violence, as in the broken windows theory, whereby neglecting a broken window leads to more windows being broken, without punishment for those responsible (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

263

However, it would be too simplistic to assume that such interventions directly cause other types of violence, such as domestic violence or assassinations. Rather, what this shows is that apart from failing to prevent or reduce certain types of violence, the lack of understanding of the root causes of violence in the area may result in existing types of violence being intensified – as in a snowball effect. Although the focus of my research is less about the causes of violence and more about the role of planning and physical responses to violence, the causes still need to be considered, as these are underlying factors affecting perceptions of insecurity, such as in the case of narco-violence in 5 de Febrero. Needless to say, physical environment interventions can have at best only marginal effects in reducing narco-related violence, since just as a complex combination of factors give rise to the appearance of this violence, a combination of economic, social and criminal justice issues should be taken into account when designing strategies to deal with it.

In fact, the overt existence of narco-violence, particularly the Sinaloa Cartel in 5 de Febrero, and the absence of it in Los Pericos, Aguascalientes, makes the greatest difference between neighbourhoods. As seen in chapter 7, in Los Pericos the most-mentioned preoccupation of respondents was related to economic violence and the presence of gangs, and persistent gang fights in public spaces.

In Los Pericos, Aguascalientes, the third level of analysis can be exemplified by the intervention of Linea Verde. This project aimed to provide a recreational area to a low-income sector of the city, which was loosely based on the principles of CPTED, according to state officials. Nonetheless, the violence chains identified – and particularly gang violence – seem to be embedded within the context of the colonia. The limited consideration for contextual characteristics, and likewise restricted community participation in the implementation helped the space to become appropriated by criminal actors. In this case it can be highlighted that certain institutional planning processes as well as the physical context have allowed some types of violence to be entrenched in the area, particularly robbery and gang disputes.

264

As stated before, the analytical concepts applied here (violence chains and CPTED) are not mutually exclusive; in the case of Linea Verde, the planning process arguably followed the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Theory, which proposes that a properly designed environment decreases the opportunity for crime and perceived fear, increasing cohesion in the community (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007) (see chapter 2). This theory was applied in „recipe‟ mode, where some of the principles are present in Los Pericos, for example, natural surveillance and maintenance of public spaces (Reyes and Lazos, 2013); yet, the omission of other principles from CPTED mean that Linea Verde is seen as an insecure place. For example, where there was a lack of community participation or community involvement in the process of Linea Verde, participants mentioned that “we were not consulted or included, they decided to do the project, we only learnt about the project when they were already building” (interview Tomas, 2015).

It has been asserted that fear of crime and insecurity can hardly be „designed out‟ (Pain, 2000); rather, instead of the mere improvement of physical components of the environment, long-lasting effects may be achieved through including social relations and particularly through leading participatory holistic approaches to crime and violence prevention. Some of the critiques of situational crime theories suggest that perceptions of insecurity and fear of crime are neglected and allegedly contribute to insecurity through encouraging suspicion within the community, provoking distrust among residents (Gilling, 2001; Pain, 2000) and overall ignoring the social relations and power dynamics within communities. This has implications considering the fact that urban space is socially produced, which has direct implications for the links between perceptions of insecurity and the built environment. For some authors, the development of social relations in particular spaces are integral to insecurity and fear of crime (Pain, 2000).

Then, it can be argued that in both cases planners disregarded the „social construction of space‟ altogether. By ignoring the complex dynamic between physical space and its social context – perceived, conceived and lived (Lefebvre, 1991; Madanipour, 1996 in Pain, 2000) – the result can only marginally, if at all, improve perceptions of insecurity. This means that planning processes would

265 ideally lead to interventions conducted with the community, not just for the community.

The evidence from the two peripheral case studies suggests that the physical environment plays a significant part in people‟s perceptions of insecurity, although in different ways. At the same time, planning processes have an important role in residents‟ perceptions of insecurity: what officials do – what is officially designed and implemented in the form of responses to violence – upgrading of public areas – does not improve residents‟ feelings of insecurity. In other words, these processes illustrate to some extent „the violence of urbanisation‟ (Pedrazzini et al, 2014) and institutionally embed in urban space – or the contextual settings, according to Moser and Horn (2011) – perceptions of insecurity and, in some cases violence and crime. Overall, a clear disjunction is formed between how the urban space is conceived, designed and constructed officially, and residents‟ view of thereof.

The empirical evidence thus supports Cozens‟ (2011:482) argument that „planners need a broader understanding of environmental criminology and patterns and trends in crime as they relate to the built environment‟. This has important implications for the case studies presented, since for the most part in Mexico, planning policies have aimed to address insecurity and violence, and in some cases failed; this section has argued that their failure may be linked to their lack of incorporation of residents‟ perceptions. The following section comparatively analyses the findings from central neighbourhoods.

8.3 Central neighbourhoods: CPTED

Many similarities can be pointed out from the two central community case studies. Given the characteristics of the violence manifestations and the overall contextual settings and insights from the previous chapters – based on central residents‟ perceptions of security – the CPTED theory is used as an analytical tool for these neighbourhoods.

In both central cases, the nature of violence and crime reported was mainly economic manifestations and administrative offences: assaults, robbery, vehicle theft, and alcohol consumption in public areas. These were strongly

266 related to three issues pointed out by respondents: low population density, zoning uses and lighting.

Central neighbourhoods share similarities in their populations as residents are both older and sparse on the ground. The low density of the population in the area in both cases fosters feelings of insecurity and helps to explain how levels of perceived insecurity are nearly as high as those found in peripheral neighbourhoods, even when the violent events reported were not so common and were mostly economically-driven. The insecurity generated by the lack of „eyes on the street‟, due to low population density, can be analysed through the theory of social networks (Ferguson and Mindel, 2007; Bissler, 2003); in other words, citizens‟ involvement in social networks of support should generate higher levels of communication in the community. The reason why respondents from the city centre feel as insecure as the peripheries might be due to their limited social interaction; while in the peripheries, boundless social interaction helps residents to cope with the day-to-day effects of violence.

Also, the physical vulnerability theory of insecurity, or the assumption that perceptions of insecurity will increase among individuals with less physical ability to defend themselves from an attack (Bissler, 2003; Pantazis, 2000), highlights the fact that central communities have an older population. It has been shown that older populations report higher levels of insecurity (Vilalta, 2011) even though the perpetrators and victims of crime are often located within young groups. The importance of both neighbourhoods in terms of infrastructure for the city must be noted. Both areas contain significant educational, cultural and administrative areas that serve not only the communities, but residents from beyond the neighbourhoods. This creates a constant flux of people from all over the city to the area at certain times; however, it also implies that while during the day the area is busy, in the evening, when schools, offices and administrative buildings close, the neighbourhood becomes deserted. Adding to this, lighting issues in some streets increase residents‟ feelings of insecurity.

Regarding zoning, both in Barrio de San Marcos and Colonia Centro areas for alcohol consumption – bars, restaurants, alcohol selling points [off-licences] – were designed and planned for. While these areas are meant to be recreational, a

267 heavy influx of people living outside of the colonia is encouraged, and, according to respondents, represents security issues due to levels of alcohol consumption and resulting behaviour.

In the case of Colonia Centro this is illustrated by Paseo del Angel, a street renovation which aims to incentivise tourism through the area and to„rescue‟ this part of the historic city centre from abandonment. The street is part of an integral renovation project for the area; however, the identity that officials attempt to give to Colonia Centro – a place to go and visit restaurants, have a drink at bars and so on – is in conflict with the view of residents. The majority of respondents expressed discontent at the renovation of the area, since it is planned as a place where people drink, and public disorder usually follows.

For Barrio de San Marcos, La Feria represents several issues. The international status of this event makes it difficult for residents to have natural control over access to the area. Additionally, heavy alcohol and drug consumption during the time of La Feria accounts for many incidents, according to residents. It incites quarrels among drunken people, sexual harassment and, in some cases, robbery and assaults. People perceive the area as increasingly insecure during the time of La Feria. Similar to peripheral neighbourhoods, distrust in authorities prevails throughout central communities. In Barrio de San Marcos, particularly, most respondents reported having experienced police abuse in some form during the time of the Feria; either by being detained unjustifiably or by the police asking for money as extortion.

This highlights the importance of taking into consideration that urban space is socially constructed, and that social relations should be a part of planning urban space. Evidence from the case studies suggests that neither social relations nor communities‟ involvement in the planning processes are considered by planners when designing urban space – nor, in this case, specific physical space projects. Physical space interventions – namely, street renovations – are conceived and conducted according to „recipes‟ with components borrowed from different contexts. Renovations might well have succeeded elsewhere, but these tend to fail when the local context and community are not taken into consideration.

268

For example, in the case of Colonia Centro in Culiacan, citizens‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity made references to the five principles of the CPTED theory40 – or the lack thereof. For instance, natural surveillance is limited, due to the low density of the area; the zone‟s transit nature makes territorial reinforcement and natural access control difficult to accomplish, disrupting or dissuading the relationship between inhabitants and their environment. In this area, the maintenance of public spaces is better than in 5 de Febrero, but perceptions of insecurity are similar. The inclusion of the community is also one of the principles of the CPTED theory, where communities must be involved in all stages of planning and design of spaces, implying not only reducing risk areas for opportunistic crime but also lessening perceptions of insecurity.

From the evidence gathered in central neighbourhoods, it can be suggested that, when renovation projects have been implemented, residents‟ involvement and consultation has been restricted. Which allows pointing out that even if the conditions of physical space are relatively good, perceptions of insecurity are still high. After discussing similarities and differences between central and peripheral case studies, the next section turns to the ecological framework for violence presented in chapter 2, to scrutinise the findings of the previous three chapters under the proposed framework, in order to further understand the relations between urban space, violence and insecurity, and planning processes.

8.4 (Re)constructing urban space through violence and insecurity

We can ﬁnd the ignominious expression of violence in virtually every facet of our everyday existence. Sometimes it comes in the form of an overt appearance, where we can easily recognise its horrifying effects and deadly consequences. In other instances it is hardly recognisable at all, hidden beneath ideology, mundanity and the suspension of critical thought, where we have to look very closely through the lens of theory to appreciate how a particular set of social relations is imbued with violence (Springer and Le Billon, 2016:1, emphasis added)

40 1) natural surveillance, 2) territorial reinforcement, 3) natural access control, 4) maintenance of public spaces, and, 5) community participation

269

As acknowledged comprehensively in the literature, causality of violence is difficult to pin down, and is beyond the scope of this research. However, there seems to be increasing consensus over the extensiveness of violence, in certain contexts where it affects “every facet of our everyday existence”. Three issues from Springer and Le Billon‟s 2016 quotation are interesting, and related to my research. Firstly, how violence is now violences (Auyero and de Lara, 2012; Moser and Horn, 2011), in terms of its multiple manifestations and how these vary from overt or highly visible – homicide, robbery, assaults, etc – to private and inconspicuous – domestic violence, child abuse, etc.

Secondly, the quote alludes to the normalisation of violence discussed before at length, where being imbued in violent settings results in citizens‟ “hardly” recognising violence, like “frogs in a boiling pot” – as mentioned by research participants. This results in violence being accepted as the daily bread- and-butter of life; and citizens modify their routines accordingly. While citizens modify their routines accordingly, there are emotional and psychological consequences of this which are not well understood. As put succinctly by Das (2007:86, emphasis added) “what is evident is that there are narrative, symbolic, and societal forms in which this diffused violence is woven”.

Thirdly, and most interesting for my research, is the need to look closely at the ways in which social relations are imbued within violence – and thus into urban space, as it is socially produced. The empirical evidence thus allows an analysis of the interrelated nature of violence and the risk factors leading to its proliferation, paying especial attention to the role of urban spaces. This is done at individual and community, urban and societal levels, as suggested by the adapted ecological framework for violence discussed in chapter 2.

270

Figure 8.1 Adapted ecological framework for violence

Violencespace impact urban on U rbanspace violence on effect Society

Urban

Community/individual

Urban planning processes

Source: modified from (WHO, 2016)

As outlined in the previous two chapters, societal, urban, community and individual level factors interact to stimulate violence, in line with the ecological framework for violence.

The arrow on the right indicates that urban violence has an effect on urban space – for example, through the production of fortified enclaves, privatisation of space, etc – institutionalising spatial segregation through active or passive planning and in this way enticing manifestations of violence. The arrow on the left show how urban space equally has an effect on violence; it is here where planning might mediate the conditions of urban space, in order to enhance or minimise perceptions of insecurity and locations where opportunistic crime is likely to occur. In a way, both processes are mediated to some extent by planning processes, as shown in previous chapters.

1) Individual and community levels

As seen in the case studies of the peripheral settlements, the individual level risk factors relate to child and domestic violence and drug abuse, fuelled by

271 the presence of social and economic violence. For example, in Culiacan, respondents point out the „youth‟ as the usual culprit for crime and violence in 5 de Febrero; young people seem socially and economically driven to engage with violence – this interpretation is based on residents‟ perceptions, see chapter 6. Violence represents a means to obtaining material goods, which in turn, are thought to mean social status (see section 4.2 and 6.1). In this sense, belonging to „those who can‟ or criminals involved in narco-violence, also empowers them, further fuelling violence cycles (Jütersonke et al, 2009; Winton, 2005).

In Los Pericos, the situation is fairly similar, with the difference being that gang violence does not appear to be linked to large criminal organisations, as in the case of Culiacan. In this community, gangs are formed and sustained by young people‟s aim to socially belong; as (Winton, 2005:171) argues, “youth gangs are the manifestation of young people‟s need to feel part of a group in situations of multiple exclusion and the absence of alternatives”. Yet, accounts of domestic and child violence, as well as drug abuse, are comparable to 5 de Febrero.

In the city centres this level is illustrated by insecurity theories (see chapter 2), characterised by the population traits of the area, particularly physical vulnerability (relating to the older population), and social networks (relating to low population density). In this context, the incivility theory (Vilata, 2012;Hunter, 1978) is also relevant and helps to explain why central residents may feel insecure: they perceive signs of social disorder in the area, in the form of public alcohol consumption (Vilata, 2012) – particularly relating to the Paseo del Angel and La Feria in Barrio de San Marcos.

Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 explored the context and environmental characteristics of the communities which had been pointed out as generating risk locations where opportunistic crime occurs, both in the city centre, where the nature of violence is predominantly economic, and at the peripheries. Examples of this are zoning uses which cause depopulation in both city centres, and an absence of or deficient infrastructure and lack of services like public lighting in the peripheral settlements. Similarly, cases of failed physical intervention as a response to violence were analysed as these seem to have had a negative effect in

272 peripheral neighbourhoods, increasing perceptions of insecurity, particularly at las canchas and Linea Verde. In addition to this, community (and societal levels, discussed below) include the existence of local drugs trade and gangs, in the case of peripheral neighbourhoods.

2) Urban level

Establishing causality between planning, insecurity – or fear of crime– and urban violence is complicated. The evidence has shown that in the four communities, this relation works in different ways. On the one hand, planning processes enhance forms of spatial segregation affecting urban space in a way that might incite incidents of violence. In this sense, to Davis (2014:377) the implementation of a modernist tradition of planning (discussed in chapter 4) has laid “the social, spatial, and political conditions that make urban violence more likely”; that is, the way in which planning occurs, is conducive to certain violence manifestations.

On the other hand, increased violence and insecurity prove that citizens limit their interactions, which also affects urban space; for Tulumello (2015:268) the impacts of insecurity and fear of crime are spatial and discursive practices, and often a cause of “less civic urban lives”. This implies that citizen interactions are limited, leading to a physical and social fragmentation of cities. The pervasiveness of violence, accompanied by abundant perceptions of insecurity, justify in many cases this reshaping of the built environment, mainly through the proliferation of gated communities, dividing walls (as in the case of 5 de Febrero), or other physical divisions generating exclusive spaces and what Rodgers and O‟Neill (2012) call „infrastructural violence‟.

At the urban level, it is argued that planning processes in Mexico have failed to recognise the diverse and complex nature of urban violence. This is reflected in many ways, particularly in the lack of infrastructure, failed physical space interventions and fragmentation of urban spaces. Understanding violence from a perspective that goes beyond physical space is essential to arriving at “a more integrative understanding [of urban violence and insecurity], acknowledging that even the most seemingly place-bound expressions of violence

273 are mediated through and integrated within the wider assemblage of space” (Springer and Le Billon, 2016).

The empirical evidence from the four case-study communities helped to point out the implications for planning processes throughout cities in Mexico, and stress how these processes differ from the peripheries to the city centre, while the experiences of violence and insecurity do not considerably differ – even if the types of violence are more intense at the peripheries. As suggested by the literature, unravelling the complexity of risk factors feeding the multiple manifestations of violence is theoretically and empirically challenging. Nonetheless, this should be acknowledged by authorities and assumed as a challenge faced by planners when devising strategies to reduce or prevent violence based on the physical environment. A view of planning being concerned with making better places for citizens – through plans, design, and construction – suggests that the elements people consider problematic should be addressed; and crime, insecurity, and violence are often listed as priorities, as this research has shown (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007:233). Angotti and Irazábal (2017:8) put it succinctly, “the goal of planning ought to be to promote cities that are free of fear and violence”.

3) Societal level

The societal context and the risk factors at this level influence whether violence is accepted or discouraged. These include stark socio-economic inequalities, particularly present in Mexico (Esquivel, 2011); weak rule of law; the availability of weapons; and overall social norms that “endorse violence as an acceptable method to resolve conflicts” (WHO, 2016). In the context of Mexico, the appearance of violence is highly influenced by social, political and economic factors. Azaola (2012) argues that violence in Mexico has a traditional societal facet. Firstly, violence has always been present in the history of Mexico, mostly in the form of domestic violence which has been historically tolerated and even ignored, but also in other forms including state violence and structural violence. This „everyday violence‟ (Moser, 2004) turns into a vicious circle that causes violent behaviours and crime to become tolerated as society becomes permissive of crime (Azaola, 2012). Domestic violence, as exposed in the previous chapters,

274 is ubiquitous and evident in peripheral communities. Consequently, this „normalised violence‟ (Moser, 2004), in combination with macro factors such as changes in the economic structure of the country and stark economic inequalities, fuels the current levels of violence, provoking the proliferation of many types of violence, as seen in the four communities studied.

Added to this, the deep-rooted existence of drug trafficking in Mexico, and particularly in Culiacan, has generated particular dynamics that go beyond the scope of my research, such as large numbers of unemployed young males involved in organised crime, an increasing number of orphans due to parents being murdered by narco criminals, and a „culture of admiration‟ for drug traffickers and criminals (Valdez Cárdenas, 2017, 2015, 2007). In this sense, in the case of Mexico, and as put by Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois (2003), the social dimensions are to be considered closely when analysing violence, since these are what “give violence its power and meaning”.

Complicating matters further, a theme illustrated through the four communities was distrust in the authorities. This speaks to what Azaola (2012) calls the weakness and disintegration of the police and justice institutions which have contributed to a flawed rule of law (Azaola, 2012). There is apparently little interest by the state in prosecuting and punishing crime and violence in peripheral neighbourhoods, and in central neighbourhoods, namely in Barrio de San Marcos, the police seems to be perpetrating crimes. This irremediably generates distrust in citizens towards institutions and processes which should punish crimes, as exemplified by all four cases.

Lastly, my research highlighted the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of policies aimed at reducing urban violence and which tend to focus on spatial components, without including the communities in broader urban space configuration processes. This also emphasised the need for a multi-faceted understanding of violence and insecurity, which implies recognising that the relation of violence, insecurity and urban space to planning processes is, in Tulumello‟s (2015:258) words, a “complex and multi-layered world, comprising several dimensions, such as the psychological, sociological, cultural, and politico- economic”.

275

The next chapter presents the conclusions to the thesis, and answers the research questions in the light of findings from the empirical chapter and the analytical comparison made in this chapter.

8.5 Conclusions

The aim of this chapter was to compare the two cities and four case-study communities, in order to test the adapted ecological framework for violence, in the light of a peripheral-peripheral and central-central comparative logic across cities. This allowed an analysis of similarities and differences between the cases. The evidence from the four case-study communities suggests that violence has myriad manifestations which have an impact on urban space, shaping the daily routines and lives of citizens, and largely limiting their spatial mobility. The role of planning in mediating this interaction in particular, the relationship between urban violence and urban space, is key and the spatiality of violence (Springer and Le Billon, 2016) should be emphasised.

In this sense, the chapter highlighted the salient need for a more comprehensive understanding of violence, incorporating perspectives from planning, and considering urban (spatial) processes. This is specially the case when conceiving physical interventions to reduce or prevent violence: the focus should be on urban space including its social aspects, and looking beyond the physical environment. The empirical evidence has shown that when planning for urban development in violent contexts, it is not enough to take into account statistics and official data on violence. Residents‟ perceptions of insecurity as well as their conceptions and uses of space must be involved to achieve better results. Conversely, the lack of community consultation and omission of daily experiences and perceptions of insecurity in planning processes can have a negative effect on residents‟ perceptions of security, and in some cases, create areas where opportunistic crime might be prone to occur.

Auyero and de Lara (2012:9) write that 15 years ago “violence was conﬁned to a speciﬁc group of known perpetrators (small-scale drug-dealers who, though a minority, managed to set the tone of public life in the barrio) and to certain „no-go‟ areas of the neighbourhood [in Argentina]”. They continue by

276 arguing that today, violence has become more pervasive and intense, with young people witnessing from very early ages diverse manifestations of violence: domestic, criminal, sexual and so forth. Certainly, 5 de Febrero and Los Pericos in Culiacan and Aguascalientes, illustrate that this is also the case for the peripheries in two Mexican cities.

As shown in the two previous chapters, the reality of the urban poor is permeated with violence and insecurity, which are neither restrained to specific areas nor to specific persons. Violence and insecurity are increasingly more ubiquitous, and less spatially restricted (Auyero et al, 2015; Villarreal, 2015). For this reason, dealing with „everyday violence‟ (Moser and McIlwaine, 2003) is an added complexity that should nevertheless be incorporated into planning processes, or urban space production processes. The impacts of violence on urban space are already implicitly recognised in spatial production processes (Colombijn, 2016), such as the construction of, through the construction of gated communities, or fortified enclaves (Caldeira, 1996); physical socio-economic segregation and the disembodiment of the city and privatisation of public spaces (Rodgers, 2004); and the proliferation of private security services. But it is not only violence itself that provokes these changes; insecurity and perceptions of this also plays a major role in this relationship.

It has been acknowledged in the literature that insecure urban spaces are produced by factors surpassing the actual danger these spaces hold (Pain, 2000; Tulumello, 2015). Insecurity arises as a consequence of social relations but it has a clear spatial impact and component (Abu-Orf, 2013). Insecurity gives way to spaces of exclusion and seclusion. For inhabitants in the four communities, certain spaces – sharing a number of characteristics – are conceived as violent and insecure or posing threats, suggesting that these spaces should be avoided, and thus imposing physical restriction. Ultimately, violence and insecurity are assimilated at an individual level, and then communicated through the community by means of social relations. But social relations are also largely affected by the physical conditions of the urban space. It is this collection of individual experiences‟, then, the basis for the importance of incorporating citizens‟ perceptions of insecurity in the construction of the urban space.

277

CHAPTER 9 Conclusions

Violence and insecurity affect the way urban space is lived and perceived by citizens. Through the perceptions of ordinary people, my research considered how urban violence and insecurity are reflected in, and affected by, urban space. By trying to understand violence through the lens of an ecological framework (WHO, 2016), the research further stressed the importance of the spatial components of violence, and how the relation between urban violence, insecurity and urban space develops. This multi-dimensional focus implied not only asking „why‟ and „how‟ urban violence occurs, but went further and inquired „where‟; in which physical and urban space conditions it takes place; and to „what‟ extent planning processes generate such spaces. Ultimately, the thesis aimed to provide a grounded explanation of the ways in which the relations between urban violence and urban space interact, and how planning might generate or perpetuate certain conditions that enhance different manifestations of violence. These issues were studied in-depth in the context of four communities (two inner-city neighbourhoods and two peripheral settlements) located in two mid-size Mexican cities (Culiacan in the state of Sinaloa, and Aguascalientes in the state of Aguascalientes).

The thesis was guided by the following research questions:

1. What are the different manifestations of urban violence and insecurity in Mexico? 2. How do manifestations of urban violence relate to urban space? 3. How do violence and insecurity affect citizens‟ views, understanding and use of urban space? 4. How does urban planning practice interact with and affect the relationship between urban violence and urban space?

The aim of this chapter is to present the main conclusions to the thesis by revisiting and answering the four main research questions. Questions one, two and three were addressed in chapters 6 and 7, complemented by the analytical comparison of chapter 8. Question four guided chapters 4 and 5. The discussion in

278 this chapter is guided by the main findings that emerged from the findings of previous chapters. The core ideas are the following: o Violence in Mexico has become visible not only in the region‟s largest cities but also at national, state, city and particularly community and street levels. The adapted ecological framework for violence allowed disentangling the notion of violence and insecurity at these different scales. o Through the adapted ecological framework, it was possible to analyse the relations between space and violence and insecurity while looking critically at the role of planning. In particular, this has implications for the ways in which planning occurs in the context of Mexico, as it generates and entrenches socio- spatial inequalities, as well as failing to respond effectively to violence. o Urban violence and insecurity similarly impact diverse neighbourhoods in the city, and therefore these are not place-bound. Perceptions of insecurity reported by respondents in this research did not diverge significantly from peripheral to inner-city neighbourhoods, despite the different manifestations of violence and existing urban spatial conditions in each settlement. o While central areas were more visible to local authorities and therefore benefited from more investment in infrastructure and urban equipment, perceptions of insecurity in these neighbourhoods were sometimes enhanced by the outcomes of both active and passive planning. o In inner-city neighbourhoods as well as in peripheral settlements residents deeply distrust authorities. However, in central neighbourhoods, residents point to authorities, specifically local police, as the perpetrators of crime and abuse in these neighbourhoods. o In peripheral settlements, violence and insecurity issues are more complex. In these areas manifestations of violence are more varied, have a higher impact, and have become normalised. o In all four neighbourhoods, violence and insecurity impact residents‟ perceptions, conceptions and uses of space, and this is reflected in stark restrictions on their urban space usage.

These findings suggest that the interactions between urban space, violence, insecurity and planning are complex and context dependent.

279

Particularities at street level make a difference in residents‟ perceptions. The objective of this chapter is not to make generalisations regarding perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, but to draw conclusions which have relevance for wider debates, including those outlined in chapter 2. Since violence is so pervasive, some of the findings outlined above might echo issues experienced by ordinary citizens in many other cities in Mexico as well as in urban areas of other countries of the global south.

The following three sections of the chapter discuss aspects of the analysis made in previous chapters. In particular, overaching themes that emerged from findings which correspond with research questions are returned to, namely, perceptions of violence and insecurity in the urban space, urban development planning and theory and policy implications. The last section of this chapter gives some suggestions for further research.

9.1 Perceptions of violence and insecurity in the urban space

Chapters 6 through 8 illustrated how violence impacts four different neighbourhoods within two Mexican cities. These chapters thus enhance understandings of urban space in violent contexts, and how urban space is perceived and conceived by residents. They also highlighted how violence permeates everyday life. This daily experience of violence and the ensuing sense of insecurity are inevitably reflected in urban space and is shown through spatial restrictions in these communities. Citizens are forced to limit their movements within their neighbourhoods and reduce their social interactions with other members of the community. This relates to the first research question,

1. What are the different manifestations of urban violence and insecurity in Mexico?

Corroborating the literature, findings suggest that there are diverse and often interlinked forms of violence within and between cities (Auyero et al, 2015; Monsivais, 2002; Moser and Horn, 2011), and that national and local authorities‟ understanding of this phenomenon undermines citizens‟ direct and indirect lived experiences of violence and insecurity. When people‟s perceptions are taken into account, these tell a different, more nuanced story. My research corroborates the

280 existence of diverse manifestations of violence. More importantly, not all of these types of violence relate to organised crime, nor are they exclusively related to this. Many risk factors interact at several levels, and their causes are not easy to establish nor discern. This finding contradicts authorities‟ assumptions which tend to generalise all types of violence as being provoked by or related to organised crime, and this assumption has significant implications for the policy responses to violence being planned, designed and implemented by these authorities.

The empirical evidence discussed in chapters 6 and 7 has shown that statistics and official data on violence fail to tell „the whole story‟. In Culiacan, inhabitants of the peripheral settlement (5 de Febrero) reported violence-related incidents including child abuse, domestic violence, and forced disappearances, among others. However, while residents‟ perceptions of insecurity seem to be influenced by the physical conditions of their surroundings, their perceptions are not determined by it. These are, however, indirectly influenced by the characteristics of urban space. For example, empirical evidence seems to contradict Jacobs' (1961) „eyes on the street‟; the different zoning-uses of central areas should decrease insecurity, since these areas attract a continuous flow of people ensuring informal surveillance. Nevertheless, in reality, these uses generate low population density in central areas, as well as areas that are active during daytime, but deserted at night.

The concepts of passive and active planning discussed in chapters 6 through 8 assist comprehension of how planning for zoning use impacts the perceptions of security negatively. By juxtaposing the low-impact crimes reported in central areas with those at the peripheries, it emerges that experience of the particular „informal‟ development of peripheral areas has generated what has been referred to as “complex systems of entailment” (Valenzuela Aguilera, 2012:211). This means that generally, close social relationships or enhanced social capital, which might diminish perceptions of insecurity even in violent contexts, exist at the city peripheries.

The normalisation of violence in peripheral areas is explained looking into the conditions of “extreme social exclusion and economic isolation”. This adds to the situation of exclusionary planning processes, with the result that

281

“interpersonal relations and institutions adapt to the daily realities of crime and disorder to render violent behaviour common and socially legitimate” (Sanchez, 2006:180).

Regarding the second and third research questions,

2. How do manifestations of urban violence relate to urban space? 3. How does violence and insecurity affect citizens‟ views, understanding and use of urban space?

The research aimed to look at these issues through a mixed-methods approach which was enriched by participatory methods of data collection, precisely to capture the individuality of direct and indirect experiences and perceptions of violence and insecurity. These methods contributed to understanding perceptions at the local, community and street levels. Participatory methods added a layer of depth by graphically representing the implications of violence and insecurity on urban space, through residents‟ eyes. This helped to elucidate how people conceived and used space in the context of violence, while also showing that violent and insecure areas are not easy and straightforward to identify. This type of analysis should be considered when conducting socio- spatial interventions to reduce or prevent violence.

Even when the physical conditions of urban space are better in the inner- city neighbourhoods, this research found that citizens‟ perceptions of insecurity do not seem to differ considerably from those of the peripheral settlement. This became particularly clear in the city of Culiacan. Despite the obvious presence of organised crime in that city, the two peripheral neighbourhoods (5 de Febrero in Culiacan and Los Pericos in Aguascalientes) shared many similarities relating to processes of urban development underpinned by planning and programmatic interventions. The views and conceptions of urban space by citizens in peripheral settlements in both Culiacan and Aguascalientes seem to be permeated by the idea of violence, and the feelings of insecurity are for many their „daily bread‟.

Similarly, these perceptions contradict the claim that “crime and disorder are concentrated in a few places and virtually absent from most” (Eck and Guerette, 2012:355, see also Eck, 2002). Empirical evidence collected in this

282 research showed that crime, disorder, violence and insecurity were reported both in central and peripheral areas within both Mexican cities.

Urban violence and insecurity are experienced at an individual level, and communicated through the community by means of social relations (Colombijn, 2016; Pain, 2000), but conditioned by urban space. It is precisely here that the importance lies in understanding violence and insecurity through citizens‟ perceptions and incorporating these into the way planning processes are generated. My research sought to respond to the call to bring more attention to „the constitution of violence through space‟, critically looking at the ways that violence shapes space, and how space shapes violence, “beyond the instrumental way of analysing spatial patterns to help „explain‟ violence” (Springer and Le Billon, 2016:1). Ultimately, the thesis emphasises the importance of achieving a more comprehensive understanding of violence, while incorporating planning perspective which considers urban (space) processes, at a similar level to social and economic ones. According to the findings presented, the focus of responses to violence should rather be urban space – looking beyond the physical environment and including social aspects of it.

Urban space as understood in this thesis goes beyond the mere physical aspects and is recognised as an essential part of any social process. This broad understanding permits a clearer look at the relationship by which violence is structured through space, as well as space being structured by violence and insecurity. This endorses the claims that „dangerous places‟, either real or perceived, have extensive consequences for the “[re]structuring of urban space” (Colombijn, 2016:2). Perceived and conceived views of violence and insecurity in urban space imply that “it is not only violence experienced on one‟s body […] but also the sense that one‟s access to context is lost” (Das, 2007:9).

This thesis does not seek to idealise the views of residents as a panacea for solving violence and insecurity. Rather, the thesis argues for recognition of the potential and for residents‟ views inclusion in the planning processes which configure the spaces they inhabit. The thesis also makes the case for the recognition of the intricate relationship between risk factors interacting at

283 different levels to produce violence and insecurity as much as the importance of its context-specific impacts on the urban space.

9.2 Urban development planning

As argued in chapter 8, urban development planning has the potential to alter and mediate the perceptions and experiences of insecurity and violence in urban spaces. Looking at the planning system in Mexico (from national to local levels) allowed a closer examination of how these interactions occur. This was guided by the fourth research question,

4. How do urban planning systems interact with and affect the relationship between urban violence and urban space?

This question was explored by comparing peripheral and central areas, which permitted us to see the differences regarding planning between and within cities, and look into the implications this has for each context. What emerged from the findings is that urban development planning generally tends to improve areas which are more „visible‟ to authorities. However, it also helped to analyse the implications planning deficiencies have for urban space. In the contexts studied, despite the pervasiveness of urban violence and insecurity, the planning processes shaping urban space remain largely inaccessible to residents. The picture in central areas was similar. Residents are neither part of the decision- making process nor do they have a saying in defining where and how planned investments should be undertaken. The on-the-ground views of violence and perceptions of insecurity gathered in this research, point to the gap in the ways that urban space is officially conceived and planned, including physical space responses to violence, and how citizens view and experience urban space.

The planning system in Mexico has been recognised as normative- oriented: more concerned with drafting plans and programmes (Azuela, 2010; Garza, 2010), but with very limited fiscal and implementation tools to impact on reality. This echoes the argument of Campbell et al (2014:45) that “planning‟s normative aspirations are open to criticism for their idealism and impracticality in the face of economic forces”.

284

In many ways, the manner in which planning is subject to market economic forces and how these processes are conducted has cemented socio- spatial inequalities by continuously „peripheralising‟ the poor and privileging more „visible‟ areas. Planning has failed to recognise the latent potential of urban processes as triggers for violence and it has also alienated citizens from official urban space production processes. Thus, the origins of violence not only seem to be related to the conditions of urban space (Davis, 2012, 2014), but are also produced as much by action as by inaction of the official planning systems.

Indirectly, the limitations of planning and, more specifically, the limitations reported by planning officials in Mexico allowed a rethinking of the ways these planning deficiencies are reflected in urban space. This implies that their omission might account for the configuration of those physical spaces that communities considered as insecure, and in some cases, facilitate the occurrence of opportunistic types of crime and violence such as robbery and assaults.

9.3 Theory and policy implications

Generally, the results of socio-spatial interventions to address violence are limited if these are not reinforced by “improvements [which] are linked with institutionalising progressive security policies, increasing accountability of political institutions and social reforms encouraging civic values and commitments to non-violence” (Hoelscher and Nussio, 2016:2397). Strengthening political and social institutions – referred to as key factors in violence-reduction processes (Hoelscher and Nussio, 2016) – should therefore encompass the strengthening of planning viewed as part of these institutions. This focus encourages identifying urban spaces as sites of social relations rather than mere physical spaces where these interventions should take place.

Several issues here are important for Mexican cities and relate to the limitations of this thesis, which echo the complexity of violence in Mexico. Not only has violence become more visible and gruesome, following the escalation of the „drug wars‟ in recent years, but this has also been accompanied by critical underlying institutional weaknesses such as corruption, a weak rule of law and impunity, and – alarmingly – a growing generalised distrust in military, policy,

285 and political authorities. These issues condition and limit the potential violence reduction that socio-spatial strategies might achieve.

The cases studied in this thesis strongly suggest avoiding an approach to violence where “policy action [is] derived from a single sector or scalar point of entry” (Davis, 2012:22). Through the ecological framework, this research has sought to contribute to a more structured way of understanding and analysing violence and insecurity, while also agreeing with policy debates which argue that “effective action has been difficult because of the interrelated causalities associated with chronic urban violence” (Davis, 2012:22).

While in recent years a better understanding of violence and the possible ways to respond to it have been achieved, “on-the-ground success has remained elusive in many parts of the world” (Davis, 2012:22). This might be because situational crime-prevention strategies have been adapted with limited regard and understanding for context and underlying planning processes. The research found that “deteriorated public spaces have also been associated with gang presence and victimisation of residents”(World Bank, 2011:18). In addition, and contradicting to some extent the „broken windows‟ theory, physical space improvements seem to have had negative effects in the communities, particularly in 5 de Febrero, despite relatively improving the conditions of the urban space. This shows that intervening in these conditions requires more than superficial or physical engagement.

Moving the analysis beyond the physical improvements made in the communities, it emerges that the lack of consequences for delinquents seems to invite them to transgress further (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). In other words, despite improvimg the physical conditions of urban space, if the criminal justice system is weak, then feelings of insecurity are not ameliorated. This responds to limitations that crime prevention through environmental design and physical- space-based interventions have, since on their own they appear ineffective in reducing or preventing crime, violence and insecurity in the communities under study. The research findings therefore seem to challenge claims that “crime prevention through environmental design is a pragmatic and effective crime prevention tool” (Cozens et al, 2005).

286

Research shows that while the interventions based on CPTED and „broken windows‟ theories are well intended, based on the assumption that these are effective tools in crime and violence reduction in the communities, these do not have the desired outcomes. It appears that the deterioration of infrastructure impacts negatively on a community‟s perceptions of security regarding particular areas; however, when physical spaces are improved perceptions of insecurity do not decrease as would be expected according to these theories.

The research findings also contradicts to some extent Jacbos‟ (1961) „eyes on the streets‟, particularly in central neighbourhoods where population density is low and the increased transit of „strangers‟ caused by zoning uses in certain neighbourhood areas intensifies feelings of insecurity, rather than decreasing them. In this context, it can be asserted that the relationships between perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, urban space and planning are more fluid and nuanced than previously assumed. The adapted ecological framework (see chapters 2 and 8) allowed not only looking at violence in a more structured way, but also to consider the relations between these phenomena emphasising socio- environmental risk factors.

The introduction chapter of this thesis identified the problem of generalising the multiple manifestations of violence in the urban space of Mexican cities, and the ways violence impacts on urban space and affects citizens‟ daily lives. The research aimed to show how different manifestations of violence become inscribed onto urban space; reaffirming that violence, as much as urban space, is a social process (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois, 2003) which was analysed through the perceptions of those living in violent contexts.

In Figure 9.1 the conceptual framework introduced in chapter 2 is reinterpreted and updated reflecting on the key findings from the two cities and four settlements studied. The red arrows suggest that these relations work in conflicting ways. The conceptual relations between the three elements of the model - perceptions of violence and insecurity, planning and socio-spatial responses to violence, and urban space - are more nuanced, fluid and complex than assumed before conducting fieldwork and revisiting the conceptual debates of the literature (chapter 2).

287

Urban spatial planning has a prominent role in the regulation of development at local levels (Nadin, 2006), particularly in configuring urban space. While this type of planning is often responsible, in the case of the two cities and in other Mexican urban contexts, for articulating spatial and concrete material responses to violence, I argue (following Lefebvre 1986) that urban space is also socially „produced‟ and reproduced by citizens, and this conception of urban space by citizens is affected by their perceptions of urban violence and insecurity, as shown in this thesis. For this reason, understanding how these concepts interact at street and neighbourhood scales in particularly violent contexts is important, since urban space, for example, is subject to powerful forces that go beyond planning instruments, including the violence of urbanisation and neoliberalism in cities, as well as organised crime, conflicts for turf, and gang violence.

Similarly, urban space is affected by perceptions of violence, where infrastructure provision does not always equate to an improved sense or feeling of security. For example, investments made in the city centre in both case studies provoke transit of people throught the area, which boosts economic activity, yet, this constant flux of strangers causes residents to feel insecure in the area. In the peripheral neighbourhoods, infrastructure in the form of green areas and parks has been provided, however, it has been appropriated by criminal actors, hence residents sustain they feel insecure in these areas.

In many ways, as illustrated throughout this thesis, spatial planning and socio-spatial responses to violence have an impact on, and are affected by, perceptions of urban violence and insecurity. This relationship derives from not only through passive and active planning, but also on the way citizens‟ perceptions of violence and insecurity affect the production of urban space more broadly. Examples of this can be found in gated communities, the fortification of space, and physical socio-economic segregation, especially at the level of community and individual conceptions of urban space. In these cases, the perception of being insecure leads residents to alter their routines, to “fortify” their houses and to avoid social interaction. This in essence impacts urban space, since certain areas are thought of as being insecure and less well trafficked and in

288 some cases, these impacts go so far as to allow criminal actors to appropriate public spaces, as occurred in Linea Verde in Los Pericos.

The purple arrow encompasses the main argument of this thesis: perceptions of urban violence and insecurity should be included in planning processes and particularly considered when structuring socio-spatial responses to violence.

Figure 9.1 Revisited conceptual framework

Source: author, 2016

The thesis contributes to knowledge along methodological and empirical lines. Methodologically, the use of participatory methods to „capture‟ and respondents‟ visual representations of insecurity, violence and space complemented other quantitative and qualitative methods that were part of my research. These methods became invaluable to better understand residents‟ perceptions of both violence and urban space, and uses of the latter. Participatory methods (i.e. auto-photography and mapping) offer a practical and concrete way to achieve a better sense of residents‟ perceptions of space in violent contexts, and both how violence affects space and how space affects violence.

289

Empirically, and recognising the difficulties that might arise from generalisations, it is possible to learn from one case to understand others (Yin, 2013:325). Thus, it can be asserted that the different themes and issues addressed and discussed from the four peripheral and centrally located communities/barrios located in Culiacan and Aguascalientes, might not be exclusive to the two cities in which the research took place. These case studies allow rethinking broadly (as other researchers have done in other cities of the world) at how violence and insecurity processes might relate to intended or unforeseen planning outcomes. Empirical claims from this thesis might have particular relevance for researchers/policy makers interested in other Mexican, Latin American or „southern‟ urban contexts regarding urban spatial development and violence issues. In this research, secondary data provided a base line (chapter 4), which was then enhanced by the empirical evidence gathered (chapters 5 to 7). This resulted in an evidence based research, where surveys, semi-structured interviews and participatory methods such as mapping and auto-photography allow to to make empirically evidence-based claims regarding urban violence and insecurity, urban space and planning. This was also due to the triangulation of information by means of different methods employed and how these complemented each other.

Perceptions of violence and insecurity are present throughout many, if not all, cities in the world. The evidence presented through the thesis suggests that, in the case of Mexico, these perceptions are closely related to planning processes, and particularly the ways in which planning processes appear to be removed from people‟s lived realities, often disregard the views and experiences of residents. While the cases of the neighbourhoods discussed throughout the thesis specifically illustrate some of the limitations and drawbacks of the Mexican planning system, this is an issue that also resonates with many other contexts.

In order to remedy how disjointed planning processes –such as drafting of plans, programmes and projects– appear from citizens‟ realities, these ought to be brought closer to the areas where „planning‟ or urban „development‟ is bound to occur and have impact. This requires understanding how residents living and working in different type of neighbourhoods perceive, live and conceive space, and incorporating these notions into the process of planning, and moving beyond

290 mere simulation (forming committees for a certain project then once the project is done, the committee disappears) or consultation (seeking for community approval on an impending project). This entails strengthening urban planning processes and allowing for planners to spend enough time on the ground in order to achieve an understanding of context and people‟s perceptions of space, violence and insecurity as close to reality as possible. For example, what official planners perceive as a worthwhile initiative in a given neighbourhood to respond to violence in terms of infrastructure provision such as providing green areas or pavements, or improving provision of services such as lighting, could possibly be very different to what residents consider might make them feel more secure.

Beyond Mexico, initiatives in different cities in the global South with modest success in violence reduction and prevention outcomes include Cape Town in South Africa, Medellin in Colombia and San Salvador in El Salvador (Bauer, 2010). In Cape Town, “Violence Prevention through Urban Upgrading” (or VPUU) was implemented with the aim of improving socio-economic conditions via an area-based approach. What this means is that in particularly dangerous and neglected neighbourhood areas communities became more involved through “crime-sensitive urban design” (Bauer, 2010:5). For the remarkable violence reduction witnessed in Medellin, a number of policies came together under the “social urbanism” name, encompassing transport and infrastructure interventions to address socio-economic spatial exclusion, creating public spaces, parks and libraries, and overall community participation and involvement in policy implementation (Maclean, 2014). In San Salvador, the focus is likewise on socio-spatial improvements such as creation of public areas in former illegal waste dumping sites, but particularly focusing on attending the high levels of single-mother households that inhabit poor urban areas of the city. For this last point, assistance is provided with issues such as land titling complemented by small credit schemes (Bauer, 2010). In summary, these examples not only implement urban upgrading and principles such as CPTED, but are based on integral initiatives which encompass socio-economic approaches as much as coherent and integrated strategic planning, community involvement and good governance practices.

291

In San Salvador, the focus is likewise on socio-spatial improvements such as creation of public areas in former illegal waste dumping sites, but particularly focusing on attending the high levels of single-mother households that inhabit poor urban areas of the city. For this last point, assistance is provided with issues such as land titling complemented by small credit schemes (Bauer, 2010). In summary, these examples not only implement urban upgrading and principles such as CPTED, but are based on integral initiatives which encompass socio- economic approaches as much as coherent and integrated strategic planning, community involvement and good governance practices. These examples not only implement urban upgrading and principles such as CPTED, rather, these are based on integral initiatives which encompass coherent and integrated strategic planning, community involvement and good governance practices.

9.4 Further research

In this thesis, emphasis was put on an on-the-ground understanding of perceptions of urban violence and insecurity and how these are reflected in urban space, that is through the „spatiality of violence‟, in the context of two Mexican cities. Further research is necessary to understand other areas of study regarding the dynamics urban violence and insecurity have within cities. Looking in detail at the linkages of violence, that is, using the violence chains concept (Moser and Horn, 2011) to examine how violence triggers other types of violence, suggests that causality of violence in relation to specific contexts should be the focus of further investigation. Another strand of research could focus on how zoning uses and land patterns affect the incidence of violence. For example, is violence more likely to occur in commercial, industrial, recreational or housing zoning uses? What does this imply for planning processes? Similarly, in violent contexts, it would be important to understand the economic implications of the stark spatial restrictions inhabitants‟ experience.

One of the limitations of this thesis is the focus on interpersonal types of violence; the analysis conducted here might not be as useful for contexts of severe political or social violence, or for specific types of violence which normally occur in private areas, such as child abuse and domestic violence. Hence, further research could focus on these specific manifestations, in relation to urban space

292 and planning processes. In this sense, another limitation of this study is that the analysis conducted here is applicable mostly to urban areas, considering planning for development in urban contexts; so, research regarding the effects of violence on space in rural areas is necessary.

Regarding planning in Mexico, more research is necessary in order to understand how plans and programmes are drafted, and a more critical look at the processes of translating plans into reality in medium-sized cities. In discerning these issues, the state – through planning – could have a more active role in translating planning into a „city making‟ process, i.e. including citizens in urban development processes, rather than being concerned with drafting plans that do not seem to reflect the daily reality of citizens living in violent and insecure contexts.

293

References

Abu-Orf, H., 2013. Fear of difference: „Space of risk‟ and anxiety in violent settings. Planning Theory 12(2), 158–176. doi:10.1177/1473095212443355 Agbola, T., 1997. The Architecture of Fear, in: Urban Violence and Urban Design: Infrastructures in Time and Space, Dynamiques Africaines. Institut français de recherche en Afrique, p. xii-140 Agnew, R., 1992. Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency*. Criminology 30(1), 47–88. doi:10.1111/j.1745- 9125.1992.tb01093.x Aguayo, S., 2015. De Tlatelolco a Ayotzinapa. Las violencias del Estado. Editorial Ink. Ciudad de México, México. Albrechts, L., 2015. Ingredients for a More Radical Strategic Spatial Planning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 42(3), 510–525. doi:10.1068/b130104p Albrechts, L., Balducci, A., 2013. Practicing Strategic Planning: In Search of Critical Features to Explain the Strategic Character of Plans. disP - The Planning Review 49(3), 16–27. doi:10.1080/02513625.2013.859001 Alonso, C.H., Hita, L.S., 2013. Socio-Spatial Inequality and Violence. Sociology Mind 3(4), 298–303. doi:10.4236/sm.2013.34040 Amerio, P., Roccato, M., 2005. A predictive model for psychological reactions to crime in Italy: an analysis of fear of crime and concern about crime as a social problem. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 15(1), 17–28. doi:10.1002/casp.806 Angotti, T., Irazábal, C., 2017. Planning Latin American Cities: Dependencies and “Best Practices”. Latin American Perspectives, 44(2), 4–17. doi:10.1177/0094582X16689556 Arias, E., Goldstein, D., 2010. Violent democracies in Latin America. Duke University Press, Durham NC. Armitage, R., 2014. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, in: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer New York, pp. 720–731. doi:10.1007/978-1- 4614-5690-2_550 Arroyo, M., 2003. Evaluando la “Estrategía Giuliani”: la Política de Cero Tolerancia en el Distrito Federal, in: USMEX 2003-04 Working Paper Series. Presented at the “Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico,” Project on Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico. Centre for U.S. Mexican Studies. Centro Internacional de Estudios sobre Seguridad (CIES), La Jolla, California. Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. Effective crime prevention interventions for implementation by local government, AIC Reports Research and Public Policy Series. Australian Institute for Criminology, Australia.

294

Auyero, J., Bourgois, P., Scheper-Hughes, N. (Eds.), 2015. Violence at the Urban Margins, Global and Comparative Ethnography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Auyero, J., de Lara, A.B., 2012. In harm‟s way at the urban margins. Ethnography 13(4), 531–557. doi:10.1177/1466138111435746 Azaola, E., 2012. La violencia de hoy, las violencias de siempre. REDALYC, Desacatos, Revista de Antropología Social (40), 13–32. Azuela, A., 2010. La hechura jurídica de la urbanización. Notas para la historia reciente del derecho urbanístico., in: COLMEX (Ed.), Los Grandes Problemas de México: II Desarrollo Urbano y Regional. México, pp. 617– 655. Bauer, B., 2010. Violence Prevention through Urban Upgrading. Experiences from financial cooperation. German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Frankfurt. Bayón, M.C., Saraví, G.A., 2013. The Cultural Dimensions of Urban Fragmentation Segregation, Sociability, and Inequality in Mexico City. Latin American Perspectives 40(2), 35–52. doi:10.1177/0094582X12468865 Bhaskar, R., 1978. A realist theory of science. Hassocks, U.K., Harvester Press. Bissler, D., 2003. Fear of crime and social networks: A community study of two local public housing complexes. Ph.D dissertation, North Carolina State University. Blaikie, N., 2000. Designing Social Research.Cambridge, U.K., Polity. Boano, C., 2011. „Violent spaces‟: production and reproduction of security and vulnerabilities. Journal of Architecture 16(1), 37–55. doi:10.1080/13602365.2011.547002 Borah, W., Calnek, E.E., Davies, K., Unikel, L., Toscano, A.M., 1974. Ensayos Sobre El Desarrollo Urbano De México. Secretaria de Educación Pública. Borbolla, H., 2017. La violencia en México es un fenómeno político en que las diferencias entre gobierno y crimen organizado se diluyen. [Online] Huffington Post. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com.mx/2017/08/11/la-violencia-en-mexico- es-un-fenomeno-politico-en-que-las-difere_a_23073892/ (Accessed on 8 November 2017.)

Brandt, N., 2011. Informality in Mexico (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No.896). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Brannen, J., 2005. Mixed Methods Research: A discussion paper. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM NCRM/005 Methods Review Papers, Brenner, N., Theodore, N., 2002. Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism.” Antipode 34(3), 349–379. doi:10.1111/1467- 8330.00246 295

Briceño-León, R., Villaveces, A., Concha-Eastman, A., 2008. Understanding the uneven distribution of the incidence of homicide in Latin America. International Journal of Epidemiology 37(4), 751–757. doi:10.1093/ije/dyn153 Bronfenbrenner, U., 1977. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist 32(7), 513–531. doi:10.1037/0003- 066X.32.7.513 Brown, B., Perkins, D.D., Brown, G., 2003. Place attachment in a revitalizing neighbourhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(3), 259–271. doi:10.1016/S0272- 4944(02)00117-2 Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods, 4th edition, OUP Oxford, Oxford, New York. Bryman, A., 2003. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. 2nd edn. London and NewYork, Routledge. Buvinic, M., Morrison, A., 1999. Violence as an Obstacle to Development (Technical Notes). Inter-American Development Bank. Washington D.C. Buvinic, M., Morrison, A., Shifter, M., 1999. Violence in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Framework for Action. Inter-American Development Bank. Washington D.C. Cabañas, M., 2014. Imagined Narcoscapes: Narcoculture and the Politics of Representation. Latin American Perspectives 41(2), 3–17. doi:10.1177/0094582X13518760 Caldeira, T.P.R., 1996. Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation. Public Culture 8(2), 303–328. doi:10.1215/08992363-8-2-303 Campbell, H., Tait, M., Watkins, C., 2014. Is There Space for Better Planning in a Neoliberal World? Implications for Planning Practice and Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 45–59. doi:10.1177/0739456X13514614 Cañal-Antuna, M., 2014. Cielos de Ciudadanía. Sistematización de experiencias de 9 OSC de Aguascalientes, ed. Fundación Ahora A.C., Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes. Carpenter, C., 2010. Beyond drug wars: Transforming factional conflict in Mexico. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 27(4), 401–421. doi:10.1002/crq.20004 Carro, D., Valera, S., Vidal, T., 2010. Perceived insecurity in the public space: personal, social and environmental variables. Quality & Quantity 44(2), 303–314. doi:10.1007/s11135-008-9200-0 Castillo-Berthier, H., 2004. Pandillas, jóvenes y violencia. Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales de la UNAM, Desacatos No. 14, 105–126. Chaparro, J.J.G., 2009. Planeación Urbana En México: Un Análisis Crítico Sobre Su Proceso De Evolución. Urbano 12(19), 52–63. Circo Volador, 2014. Diagnostico e intervención con jóvenes en contextos de violencia y delincuencia, Programa Nacional para la Prevención Social de 296

la Violencia y la Delincuencia. Circo Volador para la Secretaria de Gobernación, Culiacán, Sinaloa. COLMEX, 2010. Los grandes problemas de México: II Desarrollo Urbano y Regional, Los Grandes Problemas de México. Colegio de México, México. COLMEX, 2010a. Evaluación de la percepción de inseguridad, satisfacción y cohesión social en espacios públicos, Centro de Estudios Sociológicos. Colegio de México, México. Colombijn, F., 2016. The Production of Urban Space by Violence and its Aftermath in Jakarta and Kota Ambon, Indonesia. Ethnos Journal of Anthropology, 1–22. doi:10.1080/00141844.2016.1138983 CONAPO, 2010a. Dinámica demográfica 1990-2010 y proyecciones de población 2010-2030. Sinaloa, Prospectiva Demográfica. Consejo Nacional de Población, México, D.F. CONAPO, 2010. Índice de Marginación Urbana 2010, Índices sociodemográficos. Consejo Nacional de Población, México, D.F. Concha-Eastman, A., 2002. Urban violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. Dimensions, Explanations, Actions, in: Rotker, S. (Ed.), Citizens of Fear. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey and London, p. 265. CONEVAL, 2014. Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social 2014. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social, México. CONEVAL, 2012. Informe de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social en México 2012. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social, México, D.F. Connolly, P., 1999. Mexico City: our common future? Environment & Urbanization 11(1), 53–78. doi:10.1177/095624789901100116 Connolly, P., Goldsmith, W., Mabin, A., 2007. Respuestas urbanas a las “décadas perdidas,” in: Martim O. Smolka, Laura Mullahy (Eds.), Perspectivas urbanas. Temas críticos en políticas de suelo en América Latina. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Massachusetts, USA. Corraliza, A., Ramírez, F., 1997. Hacia una tipología de lugares peligrosos en relación con el miedo al delito. Psychosocial Intervention 6(2), 237–248. Cotterill, P., Letherby, G., 1994. The “person” in the researcher, in: R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Studies in Qualitative Methodology: Issues in Qualitative Research. AbeBooks Ltd. Greenwich, UK. pp. 107–136. Cozens, P., Davies, T., 2013. Crime and residential security shutters in an Australian suburb: Exploring perceptions of „Eyes on the Street‟, social interaction and personal safety. Crime Prevention Community Safety 15(3), 175–191. doi:10.1057/cpcs.2013.5 Cozens, P., Love, T., Nasar, J.L., 2015. A Review and Current Status of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPL bibliography 30(4), 393–412. doi:10.1177/0885412215595440

297

Cozens, P., Saville, G., Hillier, D., 2005. Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography. Property Management 23(5), 328–356. doi:10.1108/02637470510631483 Cozens, P.M., 2011. Urban Planning and Environmental Criminology: Towards a New Perspective for Safer Cities. Planning Practice & Research 26(4), 481–508. doi:10.1080/02697459.2011.582357 Dammert, L., Oviedo, E., 2004. Santiago: Delitos y violencia urbana en una ciudad segregada, in: De Mattos, C., Ducci, M., Rodriguez, A., Yanez, G. (Eds.), Santiago En La Globalización: ¿Una Nueva Ciudad? Ediciones Sur, Santiago de Chile. Danermark, B., 2002. Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences. London and New York, Routledge. Das, V., 2007. Life and Words: Violence and the Descent Into the Ordinary. California, USA, University of California Press. Davis, D., 2016. The production of space and violence in cities of the global south: Evidence from Latin America. Nóesis: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 25(49-1), 1–15. Davis, D., 2014. Modernist Planning and the Foundations of Urban Violence in Latin America. Built Environment 40(3), 376–393 (18). Davis, D., 2012. Urban Resilience in Situations of Chronic Violence. United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) USA. De Munk, V., Sobo, E., 2008. Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook. Plymouth, U.K., Altamira Press; New e. edition. Denzin, N.K., 1970. The research act : a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New Jersey, Aldine. Dickson-Swift, V., James, E.L., Kippen, S., Liamputtong, P., 2009. Researching sensitive topics: qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research 9(1), 61–79. doi:10.1177/1468794108098031 DIF Culiacán , 2013. Home Page [Online]. http://dif.Culiacán .gob.mx/. URL http://dif.Culiacán .gob.mx/ Doran, J., Lees,G., 2005. Investigating the Spatiotemporal Links Between Disorder, Crime, and the Fear of Crime. The Professional Geographer 57(1), 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.2005.00454.x Duran-Martinez, A., Hazard, G., Rios, V., 2010. 2010 Mid-year Report on Drug Violence in Mexico. Trans - Border Institute Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies University of San Diego, San Diego. Eck, J., 2002. Preventing crime at places, in: Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B., Mackenzie, D. (Eds.), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. London, UK, Routledge, pp. 9241–94. Eck, J.E., Guerette, R.T., 2012. Place-Based Crime Prevention: Theory, Evidence, and Policy, in: Farrington, D., Welsh, B. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. Oxford, U.K., Oxford University Press. 298

Eibenschutz, R., Goya, C., 2009. Estudio de la integración urbana y social en la expansión reciente de las ciudades en México, 1996-2006: dimensión, características y soluciones., Conocer para Decidir, Estudios Urbanos. SEDESOL, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana, México, D.F. Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review 14(4), 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557 Eisner, M., 2009. The Uses of Violence: An Examination of Some Cross-Cutting Issues. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 3(1), 40–59. ENVIPE, 2016. Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública 2016. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, México. ENVIPE, 2013. Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción de Seguridad Pública. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, México. Esquivel, G., 2011. The Dynamics of Income Inequality in Mexico since NAFTA. Economía 12(1), 155–179. doi:10.1353/eco.2011.0009 Fainstein, S.S., 2005. Planning Theory and the City. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25(1), 121–130. doi:10.1177/0739456X05279275 Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., Loayza, N., 2000. Crime and Victimization: An Economic Perspective. Economía 1(1), 219–302. doi:10.1353/eco.2000.0004 Ferguson, K.M., Mindel, C.H., 2007. Modeling Fear of Crime in Dallas Neighborhoods: A Test of Social Capital Theory. Crime and Delinquency 53(2), 322–349. doi:10.1177/0011128705285039 Fernández Ramírez, B., 1995. Lugares peligrosos, psicología ambiental y miedo al delito. PhD Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, España. Friedmann, J., 1998. Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies 6(3), 245–253. doi:10.1080/09654319808720459 Fuentes, C., Basombrio, C, Dellasoppa, E., Fruhling, E., 2011. Seguridad ciudadana en America Latina. Miradas críticas a procesos institucionales. Área Prevención del Delito a Nivel Local Centro de Estudios en Seguridad Ciudadana Instituto de Asuntos Públicos Universidad de Chile, Chile. Galtung, J., 1990. Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research 27(3), 291–305. doi:10.1177/0022343390027003005 Galtung, J., 1969. Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research 6(3), 167–191. Garbarino, J., 2001. An ecological perspective on the effects of violence on children. Journal of Community Psychology 29(3), 361–378. doi:10.1002/jcop.1022 Garofalo, J., 1979. Victimization and the Fear of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16(1), 80–97. doi:10.1177/002242787901600107

299

Garza, G., 2010. La transformación urbana de México, 1970-2020, in: COLMEX (Ed.), Los Grandes Problemas de México: II Desarrollo Urbano y Regional. México, pp. 617–655. Garza, G., 2003. La urbanización de México en el Siglo XX, Centro de Estudios Demográficos y de Desarrollo Urbano. El Colegio de México, México. Garza, G., Schteingart, M., 2010. Introducción general, in: Los grandes problemas de México: II Desarrollo Urbano y Regional, Los grandes problemas de México. Colegio de México, México, p. 659. Gerring, J., 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K. Gilbert, K., 2000. The Emotional Nature of Qualitative Research. Florida, USA, CRC Press. Gilling, D., 2001. Community Safety and Social Policy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 9(4), 381–400. doi:10.1023/A:1013195320449 Glebbeek, M.-L., Koonings, K., 2016. Between Morro and Asfalto. Violence, insecurity and socio-spatial segregation in Latin American cities. Habitat International, Special Issue: Urban Segregation in Latin America 54, Part 1, 3–9. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.012 Gobierno de la Republica, 2014. Programa Nacional de Desarrollo Urbano 2014- 2018. Gobierno Federal Estados Unidos Mexicanos, México. Gobierno de la Republica. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2014a. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo. Gobierno Federal. Gobierno de la Republica. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2014b. Programa Nacional para la prevención social de la violencia y la delincuencia, 2014-2018. Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, 2010. Portal del Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes [Online]. Servicio Estatal de Información Geográfica y Estadística. URL http://www.aguascalientes.gob.mx/CEPLAP/SEIEG/default.asp Gobierno del Estado de Sinaloa, 2013. Ley de Desarrollo Urbano del Estado de Sinaloa. Gobierno del Estado de Sinaloa, Sinaloa. Gold, R., 1970. Urban Violence and Contemporary Defensive Cities. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 36(3), 146–159. doi:10.1080/01944367008977301 Goldstein, D.M., 2012. Outlawed: Between Security and Rights in a Bolivian City. Duke University Press Books, Durham. González Navarro, M., 1957. La huelga de Río Blanco. Historia Mexicana. El Colegio de México 6, 510–533. México González Ruiz, E., 2008. El movimiento estudiantil del 68. Tiempo Universitario. Gaceta Histórica de la BUAP 11, No. 5. Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3), 481–510.

300

Grillo, I., 2013. El Narco: The Bloody Rise of Mexican Drug Cartels. London, Bloomsbury Paperbacks. Guerrero-Gutiérrez, E., 2012. Políticas de seguridad en México: análisis de cuatro sexenios, in: Atlas de La Seguridad y Defensa de México. Colectivo de Análisis de la Seguridad con Democracia A.C. (CASEDE), México. Honorable Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2014. Plan Municipal de Desarrollo Aguascalientes 2014-2016. Honorable Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, 2011. Aguascalientes: V Siglos a través de su cartografía. H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes. Honorable Ayuntamiento de Culiacán, 2014. PMD Plan Municipal de Desarrollo 2014-2016. H. Ayuntamiento de Culiacán , Culiacán , Sinaloa. Hagan, E., 2012. Introduction to Criminology: Theories, Methods, and Criminal Behaviour, Eighth Edition. Los Angeles, SAGE Publications, Inc. Hammersley, M., 2002. The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism, in: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Blackwell, Oxford, p. 159–174. Harvey, D., 2012. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution, London and New York, ed. Verso. Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative Planning. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Heinemann, A., Verner, D., 2006. Crime and violence in development: a literature review of Latin America and the Caribbean (Policy Research Working Paper Series No. 4041). World Bank. Washington D.C. Heinle, K., Molzahn, C., Shirk, D., 2014. Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis Through 2014, Justice in Mexico. Department of Political Science & International Relations University of San Diego, USA. Heinle, K., Rodriguez, O., Shirk, D., 2017. Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis Through 2016, Justice in Mexico. Department of Political Science & International Relations University of San Diego, USA. Hernandez, A., 2013. Narcoland: The Mexican Drug Lords And Their Godfathers, ed. Verso, London. Hoelscher, K., Nussio, E., 2016. Understanding unlikely successes in urban violence reduction. Urban Studies 53(11), 2397–2416. doi:10.1177/0042098015589892 Howard, D., Hume, M., Oslender, U., 2007. Violence, fear, and development in Latin America: a critical overview. Development in Practice 17(6), 713– 724. doi:10.1080/09614520701628071 Hunter, A., 1978. Symbols of Incivility: Social Disorder and Fear of Crime in Urban Neighborhoods (No. 82421). Northwestern University Center for Urban Affairs, US.

301

Ibarra Escobar, G., Ruelas, A.L., Carrillo Rojas, A., 1994. Culiacán a través de los siglos. Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, Escuela de Historia : Ayuntamiento de Culiacán, Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. Imbusch, P., Misse, M., Carrión, F., 2011. Violence Research in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Literature Review. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 5(1), 87–154. IMPLAN Aguascalientes, 2015. PIMAgs [Online]. Plataforma de Informacion Municipal Aguascalientes. Available at: http://www.pimags.gob.mx/index.php?p=censal IMPLAN Aguascalientes, 2007. Programa de Desarrollo Urbano de la Ciudad de Aguascalientes 2030. IMPLAN Cln, 2006. Plan Parcial de Movilidad para el Desarrollo Urbano de la Ciudad de Culiacán Rosales, Sinaloa. Instituto Municipal de Planeación, H. Ayuntamiento de Culiacán, Culiacán, Sinaloa. IMPLAN Culiacán, 2010a. Mapa interactivo. IMPLAN Culiacán, 2010b. Plan Parcial Culiacán Zona Centro. INEGI, 2010. Censos y conteo de población y vivienda 2010. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Jacobs, J., 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage, New York. Jacoby, T., 2008. Understanding Conflict and Violence: Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Approaches. London and New York, Routledge Jeffery, C.R., 1971. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Johns, C.J., 1995. The Origins of Violence in Mexican Society: Praeger, Westport, Conn. Jones, G., Ward, P, 1998. Privatizing the commons: reforming the ejido and urban development in Mexico. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 22(1), 76–93. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00124 Jütersonke, O., Muggah, R., Rodgers, D., 2009. Gangs, Urban Violence, and Security Interventions in Central America. Security Dialogue 40(4-5), 373–397. doi:10.1177/0967010609343298 Katz, F., 2004. De Díaz a Madero. Orígenes y estallido de la Revolución Mexicana. Ediciones Era. Ciudad de Mexico Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B.P., Wilkinson, R.G., 1999. Crime: social disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science & Medicine 48(6), 719–731. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00400-6 Kawulich, B.B., 2005. Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method. [Online] Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6. Available at: http://www.qualitative- research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466/996 (accessed 11.7.05).

302

Kemp, S., 2015. Ecological Framework [Online]. Oxford Bibliographies. Available at: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo- 9780195389678/obo-9780195389678-0095.xml (accessed 11.7.15). Koonings, K., Kruijt, D. (Eds.), 2006. Fractured Cities: Social Exclusion, Urban Violence and Contested Spaces in Latin America, London and New York, Zed Books. Kressler, G., 2015. El sentimiento de inseguridad: Sociología del temor al delito, 3rd Edition, Sociología y Política. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Kühn, M., 2015. Peripheralization: Theoretical Concepts Explaining Socio- Spatial Inequalities. European Planning Studies 23(2), 367–378. doi:10.1080/09654313.2013.862518 Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city. Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behaviour 33(3), 343–367. Latinobarometro, 2010. Database [Online]. Available at: http://www.latinobarometro.org/documentos/LATBD_INFORME_LATI NOBAROMETRO_2010.pdf (accessed 3.8.14) Santiago. Lee, M., Renzetti, M., 1990. The Problems of Researching Sensitive Topics An Overview and Introduction. American Behavioural Scientist 33(5), 510– 528. doi:10.1177/0002764290033005002 Lefebvre, H., 1996. Writings On Cities. Wiley-Blackwell. Massachusetts, USA. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Wiley. Massachusetts, USA. Lombard, M., 2013. Using auto-photography to understand place: reflections from research in urban informal settlements in Mexico. Area 45(1), 23–32. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2012.01115.x Lombard, M., 2009. Making a place in the city: place-making in urban informal settlements in Mexico. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK. Lujano, L., 2011. Historia del transporte público en Culiacán (1872-1980). Ayuntamiento de Culiacán, Instituto Municipal de Cultura, Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico. Lutters, W.G., Ackerman, M.S., 1996. An introduction to the Chicago School of Sociology [Online]. Interval Research Proprietary. Available at: https://userpages.umbc.edu/~lutters/pubs/1996_SWLNote96- 1_Lutters,Ackerman.pdf (accessed 5.6.16) Maclean, K., 2014. The „Medellín Miracle‟: The politics of crisis, elites and coalitions for the Developmental Leadership Program available at:http://www.dlprog.org/publications/the-medellin-miracle-the-politics- of-crisis-elites-and-coalitions.php Mahiri, I., 1998. Comparing transect walks with experts and local people. IIED London 4–8. Margain, H.B., 1965. Mexican Economic and Social Development. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 360, 68–77. doi:10.1177/000271626536000106

303

Martinez, M.L., Black, M., Starr, R.H., 2002. Factorial structure of the Perceived Neighbourhood Scale (PNS): A test of longitudinal invariance. Journal of Community Psychology. 30(1), 23–43. doi:10.1002/jcop.1048 Mason, J., 2006. Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research 6(1), 9–25. doi:10.1177/1468794106058866 Mason, J., 2002. Qualitative Researching, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications, Inc, London, Thousand Oaks, California, USA, New Delhi. McEvoy, P., Richards, D., 2006. A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing 11(1), 66–78. doi:10.1177/1744987106060192 McIlwaine, C., Moser, C., 2007. Living in Fear: How the Urban Poor Perceive Violence, Fear and Insecurity, in: Fractured Cities. Social Exclusion, Urban Violence and Contested Spaces in Latin America. Zed Books Ltd, New York, pp. 117–138. Merton, R.K., 1938. Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review 3(5), 672. doi:10.2307/2084686 Meth, P., Malaza, K., 2010. Violent research: the ethics and emotions of doing research with women in South Africa. Ethics, Place & Environment 6(2), 143–159. doi:10.1080/1366879032000130786 México Evalúa, 2015. Prevención del delito en México: ¿Cuáles son las prioridades? México Evalúa, Centro de Análisis de Políticas Públicas, México, D.F. Meyer, L., 2013. Nuestra tragedia persistente: La democracia autoritaria en México. Debate. Ciudad de México, México. Meyer, L., 2005. Liberalismo autoritario: Las contradicciones del sistema político mexicano, ed. Océano. Ciudad de México, México. Meyer, L., 1977. Historical roots of the authoritarian state in Mexico. Authoritarianism in Mexico, Authoritarianism in Mexico. -Philadelphia, Pa. : Institute for the Study of Human Issues, ISBN 0915980649. - 1977, p. 3-22. Miceli, R., Roccato, M., Rosato, R., 2004. Fear of Crime in Italy. Environment and Behavior 36(6), 776–789. doi:10.1177/0013916503261931 Molzahn, C., Rios, V., Shirk, D., 2012. Drug Violence in Mexico: Data and Analysis Through 2011, Justice in Mexico. Department of Political Science & International Relations University of San Diego. San Diego. Monjardín, A., 2014. Ubica Segob los sectores más violentos en Culiacán. Noroeste Culiacán [Online]. Available at: http://www.noroeste.com.mx/pub/897176 (accessed 7.10. 14) Monsivais, C., 2002. Citizenship and Urban Violence. Nightmares in the open air, in: Rotker, S., Goldman, K. (Eds.), Citizens of Fear: Urban Violence in Latin America.. New Jersey, USA. Rutgers University Press. Montemayor, C., n.d. La violencia de Estado en México. [Online] Available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/10/23/index.php?section=opinion&arti cle=025a1pol (accessed 5.8.17) La Jornada. 304

Morenoff, J., Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S.W., 2001. Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence*. Criminology 39(3), 517–558. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00932.x Morrison, D.E., 1971. Some Notes Toward Theory on Relative Deprivation, Social Movements, and Social Change. American Behavioral Scientist. 14(5), 675-690 doi: 10.1177/000276427101400504 Moser, C., 2012. Understanding the tipping point of urban conflict: participatory methodology for gender-based and political violence. Global Urban Research Centre University of Manchester, Understanding the tipping point of urban conflict: violence, cities and poverty reduction in the developing world Working Paper #2. Moser, C., 2004. Urban Violence and Insecurity: An Introductory Roadmap. Environment and Urbanization 16(2), 3–16. doi:10.1177/095624780401600220 Moser, C., Horn, P., 2011. Understanding the tipping point of urban conflict: violence, cities and poverty reduction in the developing world. Global Urban Research Centre, University of Manchester, Understanding the tipping point of urban conflict: violence, cities and poverty reduction in the developing world Working Paper #1. Moser, C., McIlwaine, C., 2014. New frontiers in twenty-first century urban conflict and violence. Environment and Urbanization 26(2), 331–344. doi:10.1177/0956247814546283 Moser, C., McIlwaine, C., 2006. Latin American Urban Violence as a Development Concern: Towards a Framework for Violence Reduction. World Development 34(1), 89–112. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.012 Moser, C., McIlwaine, C., 2003. Encounters with Violence in Latin America: Urban Poor Perceptions from Colombia and Guatemala. London and New York, Routledge. Muggah, R., 2014. Deconstructing the fragile city: exploring insecurity, violence and resilience. Environment and Urbanization 26(2), 345–358. doi:10.1177/0956247814533627 Muggah, R., 2012. Researching the Urban Dilemma: Urbanization, Poverty and Violence. International Development Research Centre, IDRC, Canada. Nadin, V 2006, The role and scope of spatial planning; Literature review - spatial plans in practice: supporting the reform of spatial planning. Department for Communities and Local Government, London. Newman, O., 1973. Defensible Space; Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. Macmillan Pub Co, New York. Noroeste Redacción, 2010. Fallece estrangulada y a golpes una mujer. [Online] Available at: http://www.noroeste.com.mx/pub/265195 (accessed 10.8.10) Noroeste Culiacán.

305

Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, 2015. Incidencia de los delitos de alto impacto en México. Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano. Seguridad, Justicia y Legalidad, México. Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, 2013. Reporte del Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano sobre delitos de alto impacto. Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, Mexico. OECD, 2016. States of Fragility 2016: Understanding violence. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Publishing, Paris. Olsen, W., 2004. Triangulation in Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Can Really Be Mixed. Development in Sociology [Online]. Available at: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/triangulatio n-in-social-research-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods-can-really-be- mixed(d093fbb8-6c02-4915-9d90-907d8c82105d).html (accessed 10.11.14) Pain, R., 2003. Youth, age and the representation of fear. Capital & Class 27(2), 151–171. doi:10.1177/030981680308000109 Pain, R., 2000. Place, social relations and the fear of crime: a review. Progress in Human Geography 24(3), 365–387. doi:10.1191/030913200701540474 Palacios, J. 2000. Militarización, seguridad nacional, seguridad pública en México. Espiral VI, 183–222. Palma, E., 2010. México: entre la violencia y la consolidación del sistema de partidos. Revista de ciencia política (Santiago) 30(2), 379–396. doi:10.4067/S0718-090X2010000200011 Pansters, W., 2012. Violence, Coercion, and State-Making in Twentieth-Century Mexico: The Other Half of the Centaur. Stanford, California, USA, Stanford University Press. Pansters, W., Castillo-Bunerthier, H., 2007. Mexico City, in: Koonings, K., Kuijt, D. (Eds.), Fractured Cities: Social Exclusion, Urban Violence and Contested Spaces in Latin America. Zed Books, London, pp. 36–57. Pantazis, C., 2000. „Fear of Crime‟, Vulnerability and Poverty. British Journal of Criminology 40(3), 414–436. doi:10.1093/bjc/40.3.414 Patel, R., Burkle, F., 2012. Rapid Urbanization and the Growing Threat of Violence and Conflict: A 21st Century Crisis. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 27(2), 194–197. doi:10.1017/S1049023X12000568 Pedrazzini, Y., Vincent-Geslin, S., Thorer, A., 2014. Violence of Urbanization, Poor Neighbourhoods and Large-Scale Projects: Lessons from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Built Environment 40(3), 394–407. doi:10.2148/benv.40.3.394 Perlesz, A., Lindsay, J., 2003. Methodological triangulation in researching families: Making sense of dissonant data. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6(1), 25–40. doi:10.1080/13645570305056 Perlman, J., 2010. Favela: Four Decades of Living on the Edge in Rio de Janeiro. Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press.

306

Portes, A., Roberts, B.R., 2005. The free-market city: Latin American urbanization in the years of the neoliberal experiment. Studies in Comparative International Development 40(1), 43–82. doi:10.1007/BF02686288 Pradilla Cobos, E., 2009. Los centros históricos en las metrópolis de hoy.[Online] Available at: http://www.emiliopradillacobos.com/articulos/Los%20Centros%20Histori cos%20en%20las%20Metropolis%20de%20Hoy.pdf (accessed 13.6.15) Presidencia de la República, 2014. Programa para la Seguridad Nacional 2014 - 2018. Una política multidimensional para México en el siglo XXI. Gobierno Federal, México. Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado, 2012. 30 Colonias de la ciudad con de Aguascalientes con más incidencia de robos en 2012. Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes. Purcell, M., 2002. Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant. Geo Journal 5(2-3)8, 99–108. Ramírez, B.F., Corraliza, J.A., 1998. Generalidad y especificidad en la explicación del miedo al delito y los lugares peligrosos. Apuntes de Psicología 16(1-2), 173–186. Reyes, A., Lazos, F., 2013. La fuerza de la prevención. La experiencia de Aguascalientes, H. Ayuntamiento de Aguascalientes, México. Ríos Contreras, V., 2013. How Government Structure Encourages Criminal Violence: The causes of Mexico‟s Drug War. PhD Thesis, Harvard University Ríos Piter, A., 2017. Libertad de expresión atacada, democracia en riesgo. Excélsior Available at http://www.excelsior.com.mx/opinion/armando- rios-piter/2017/05/22/1164926 (accessed 14 August 17). Robinson, J., 2002. Global and world cities: a view from off the map. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 26(3), 531–554. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.00397 Robles, G., Calderon, G., Magaloni, B., 2013. Las consecuencias económicas de la violencia del narcotráfico en México. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Available at: http://www.iadb.org/es/publicaciones/detalle,7101.html?id=72044 (Accessed 18 February 2014). Rodda, J., 2010. „Prensa, Prensa‟: A Journalist‟s Reflections on Mexico ‟68. Bulletin of Latin American Research 29(1), 11–22. doi:10.1111/j.1470- 9856.2009.00335.x Rodgers, D., 2010. Urban violence is not (necessarily) a way of life: towards a political economy of conflict in cities, in: Beall, J., Guha-Khasnobis, B., Kanbur, R. (Eds.), Urbanization and Development: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

307

Rodgers, D., 2004. “Disembedding” the city: crime, insecurity and spatial organization in Managua, Nicaragua. Environment and Urbanization 16(2), 113–124. doi:10.1177/095624780401600202 Rodgers, D., O‟Neill, B., 2012. Infrastructural violence: Introduction to the special issue. Ethnography 13(4), 401–412. doi:10.1177/1466138111435738 Romero-Vadillo, J., 2016. Violencia y régimen político en México, Analisis. Fundación Friedrich Ebert México, Mexico, D.F. Rotker, S., 2002. Cities Written by Violence. An Introduction, in: Rotker, S., Goldman, K. (Eds.), Citizens of Fear: Urban Violence in Latin America. New Jersey, USA. Rutgers University Press. Rotker, S., Goldman, K., 2002. Citizens of Fear: Urban Violence in Latin America. New Jersey, USA. Rutgers University Press. Ruiz-Rivera, N., van Lindert, P., 2016. Urban segregation in Latin America. Habitat International, Special Issue: Urban Segregation in Latin America 54, 1–2. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.10.017 Sabatini, F., 2006. The Social Spatial Segregation in the Cities of Latin America (Discussion Papers & Presentations). Inter-American Development Bank. Washington, DC Sanchez, M., 2006. Insecurity and Violence as a New Power Relation in Latin America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 606, 178–195. Sassen, S., 2002. Locating cities on global circuits. Environment and Urbanization 14(1), 13–30. doi:10.1177/095624780201400102 Schensul, S., 1999. Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires: 2. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, Calif. Scheper-Hughes, N., Bourgois, P. (Eds.), 2003. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology, 1 edition. ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Mass. Schneider, R. Kitchen, T., 2007. Crime prevention and the built environment. Routledge, London; New York. Schoepfer, I., 2014. Capturing neighborhood images through photography. Visual Ethnography 3(1). doi:10.12835/ve2014.1-0029 Secretaría de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano [Online], 2013. SEDATU Misión, visión y objetivo. URL http://www.sedatu.gob.mx/sraweb/conoce-la-secretaria/mis-vis-obj/ (accessed 11 November 2014). SEDATU, 2015. Programa Rescate de Espacios Públicos Reglas de Operación 2015. Secretaría de Desarrollo Agrario, Territorial y Urbano, México. SEDESOL, 2011. Programa Rescate de Espacios Publicos [Online]. Available at: http://www.2006- 2012.sedesol.gob.mx/en/SEDESOL/Programa_de_Rescate_de_Espacios_ Publicos_PREP (accessed 9 November 2015)

308

SEGOB, SESNSP, 2016. Incidencia Delictiva del Fuero Común 2016. Secretaria de Gobernación. Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Publica, México SEGOB, SESNSP, 2015. Incidencia Delictiva del Fuero Común 2015. Secretaria de Gobernación. Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Publica, México. SEGOB, SESNSP, 2013. Incidencia Delictiva del Fuero Común 2013. Secretaria de Gobernación. Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Publica, México. SEGOB, SESNSP, 2010. Incidencia Delictiva del Fuero Común 2010. Secretaria de Gobernación. Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Publica, México. Seguridad, Justicia y Paz, 2016. La violencia en los municipios de México (2015). Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública y Justicia Penal, México, D.F. Shaw, C., McKay, H., 1969. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, USA. University of Chicago Press. Shaw, M., 2009. Conceptual and theoretical frameworks for organised violence. International Journal of Conflict and Violence 3(1), 97–106. Skogan, W.G., 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. California, USA. University of California Press. Skogan, W.G., Maxfield, M.G., 1981. Coping With Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions. SAGE Beverly Hills, USA. Soja, E., 2001. In Different Spaces Interpreting the spatial organization of societies. Presented at the Proceedings of the Third Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta. Soja, E., 2010. Seeking spatial justice. Minnesota, USA,University of Minnesota Press. Springer, S., 2011. Violence sits in places? Cultural practice, neoliberal rationalism, and virulent imaginative geographies. Political Geography 30(2), 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.01.004 Springer, S., Le Billon, P., 2016. Violence and space: An introduction to the geographies of violence. Political Geography, Special Issue: Violence and Space 52, 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.03.003 Sweet, E., Escalante, S., 2010. Planning Responds to Gender Violence: Evidence from Spain, Mexico and the United States. Urban Studies 47(10), 2129– 2147. doi:10.1177/0042098009357353 Tasan-Kok, T., 2012. Introduction: Contradictions of Neoliberal Urban Planning, in: Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning - Cities, Policies, and Politics. Netherlands, Springer. Thaler, K., 2012. The Utility of Mixed Methods in the Study of Violence, MICROCON Research Working Paper 5 9. MICROCON, Brighton.

309

Thibert, J., Osorio, G.A., 2014. Urban Segregation and Metropolitics in Latin America: The Case of Bogotá, Colombia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(4), 1319–1343. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12021 Tijerino, R., 1998. Civil spaces: a critical perspective of defensible space. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 15(4), 321–337. Trochim, W.M.K., 2006. Research Methods Knowledge Base [Online] Available at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (accessed 5.13.14). Tulumello, S., 2015. From “Spaces of Fear” to “Fearscapes”: Mapping for Reframing Theories About the Spatialization of Fear in Urban Space. Space and Culture, 18(3) doi:10.11771206331215579716 UN-Habitat, 2007. Enhancing Urban Safety and Security, Global Report on Human Settlements. UN-Habitat, London. Unikel, L., Chiapetto, C.R., Garza, G., 1976. El desarrollo urbano de México: diagnóstico e implicaciones futuras. Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos y Demográficos. Ciudad de México, México. UNODC, 2013. Global study on homicide 2013. Trends, contexts, data., United Nations publication, Sales No. 14.IV.1. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna. Vail, J., 2005. Insecure times: conceptualising insecurity and security, in: Vail, J., Wheelock, J., Hill, M. (Eds.), Insecure Times: Living with Insecurity in Modern Society. London and New York, Routledge. Valadés, J., 2006. La revolución y los revolucionarios: parte.1. La revolución constitucionalista. Instituto Nacional de Estudios Históricos de las Revoluciones de México. Ciudad de México, México. Valdez Cárdenas, J., 2017. Malayerba: La vida bajo el narco, 2nd edition. ed. Jus, Libreros y Editores. Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. Valdez Cárdenas, J., 2015. Huérfanos del narco: Los olvidados de la guerra del narcotráfico. Aguilar. Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. Valdez Cárdenas, J., 2007. Los morros del narco. Aguilar. Culiacán, Sinaloa, México. Valdez, R., 2011. Matan a dos en la colonia 5 de Febrero. Línea Directa. Valenzuela- Aguilera, A., 2013. Urban Surges: Power, Territory, and the Social Control of Space in Latin America. Latin American Perspectives 40(2), 21–34. doi:10.1177/0094582X12466834 Valenzuela-Aguilera, A., 2017. Failed Markets: The Crisis in the Private Production of Social Housing in Mexico. Latin American Perspectives 44(2), 38–51. doi:10.1177/0094582X16682782 Valenzuela-Aguilera, A., 2012. La eficacia colectiva como estrategia de control social del espacio barrial: evidencias desde Cuernavaca, México. Revista INVI 27, 187–215. Vega Ochoa, A., 2004. La Conservación de la Arquitectura del Siglo XX en México: Múltiples retos por enfrentar. usjt Arquitectura Urbana No. 6, 112–121.

310

Vilalta, C., 2012. Los determinantes de la percepción de inseguridad frente al delito en México. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Washington, DC Vilalta, C.J., 2011. Fear of crime in public transport: Research in Mexico City. Crime Prevention Community Safety 13(3), 171–186. doi:10.1057/cpcs.2011.4 Villarreal, A., 2015. Fear and Spectacular Drug Violence in Monterrey, in: Auyero, J., Bourgois, P., Scheper-Hughes, N. (Eds.), Violence at the Urban Margins, Global and Comparative Ethnography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Vogelman, L., Lewis, S., 1993. Gang Rape and the Culture of Violence in South Africa. Published in German under the title, Illusion der Stärke: Jugenbanden, vergewaltigung und kultuur der gewalt in Südafrika, in Der Überblick, No. 2. Walker, D.W., 1981. Porfirian Labor Politics: Working Class Organizations in Mexico City and Porfirio Diaz, 1876-1902. The Americas 37(3), 257–289. doi:10.2307/980703 Walker, I., Pettigrew, T.F., 1984. Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique. British Journal of Social Psychology 23(4), 301–310. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1984.tb00645.x Walter, M., 2014. Social Research Methods, Third Edition. ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York. Ward, P., 2009. Unpackaging residential segregation: the importance of scale and informal market processes. Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, UNAM, No.70, 114–134. Ward, P., 1999. Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth. University of Texas Press, Texas, USA. Watson, V., 2009. Seeing from the South: Refocusing Urban Planning on the Globe‟s Central Urban Issues. Urban Studies 46(11), 2259–2275. doi:10.1177/0042098009342598 WHO, 2016. The ecological framework [Online]. World Health Organization. URL http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/ecology/en/ (accessed 7.4.15). WHO, 2004. The economic dimensions of interpersonal violence, Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland. Widdowfield, R., 2000. The place of emotions in academic research. Area 32(2), 199–208. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2000.tb00130.x Wilcox, P., Quisenberry, N., Jones, S., 2003. The Built Environment and Community Crime Risk Interpretation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40(3), 322–345. doi:10.1177/0022427803253801 Wilson, J., Kelling, G., 1982. Broken windows. [Online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken- windows/304465/ (accessed 15.4.14)

311

Wilson-Doenges, G., 2000. An Exploration of Sense of Community and Fear of Crime in Gated Communities. Environment and Behaviour 32(5), 597– 611. doi:10.1177/00139160021972694 Winton, A., 2014. Gangs in global perspective. Environment and Urbanization 26(2), 401–416. doi:10.1177/0956247814544572 Winton, A., 2005. Youth, gangs and violence: Analysing the social and spatial mobility of young people in Guatemala City. Children‟s Geographies 3(2), 167–184. doi:10.1080/14733280500161537 Winton, A., 2004. Urban violence: a guide to the literature. Environment and Urbanization 16(2), 165–184. doi:10.1177/095624780401600208 World Bank, 2011a. Violence in the City: Understanding and Supporting Community Responses to Urban Violence. World Bank, Social Development Department, Conflict and Crime and Violence Team. Washington, DC. World Bank, 2011b. Crime and Violence in Central America. A Development Challenge. The World Bank. Washington, D.C. World Bank, 2009. The costs of violence. Social Development Department, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Health Organisation, 2017. The ecological framework [Online]. Violence prevention approach. Available at: http://www.who.int/violenceprevention/approach/ecology/en/ (accessed 11 July 2016). Wynne, T., 2008. An Investigation into the Fear of Crime: Is there a link between the Fear of Crime and the Likelihood of Victimisation? Internet Journal of Criminology. Yiftachel, O., 1998. Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side. Journal of Planning Literature. Vol. 12(4), Issue 4, 395–406. doi:10.1177/088541229801200401 Yin, R. K. (2013) Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321–332. Yin, R.K., 2011. Applications of Case Study Research, 3 edition. ed. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Yin, R.K., 1994. Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Yodanis, C.L., Godenzi, A., Stanko, E.A., 2000. The Benefits of Studying Costs: A Review and Agenda for Studies on the Economic Costs of Violence Against Women. Policy Studies 21(3), 263–276. doi:10.1080/01442870020019534 Zepeda, G., 2008. Índice de incidencia delictiva y violencia, CIDAC, Seguridad Ciudadana, Justicia Penal y Derechos Humanos en México. Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo, A.C., Mexico, D.F.

312

Annexes Annex 1

Example of map with surveys location and number in Barrio de San Marcos

313

Annex 2

Semi-structured interviews with officials City Pseudonym Position Institution Level Date Efren Director of IMPLAN Municipal 03.02.15 area Ulises Supervisor Obras Publicas Municipal 02.02.15 Enrique Manager Obras y Municipal 07.02.15 Servicios Publicos Alberto Juridical area CESAVI Municipal 07.02.15 Indira Director DIF Municipal 05.02.15 Sebastian Director of Sub-Secretaria State 21.03.15 area de Planeacion y Desarrollo Urbano Ivette State Delegada INFONAVIT State 21.03.15 Rafael Director of SEDATU State/Federal 29.01.15 area

Culiacan Karla Director NGO Culiacan Municipal 22.01.15 Participa Carolina Member Circo Volador Municipal 28.01.15 Roberto Academic Universidad N/A 27.01.15 Autonoma de Sinaloa Benito Academic Universidad N/A 02.02.15 Autonoma de Sinaloa Maria Director of SEDESOL Municipal/ 13.03.15 area Federal Mauricio Director of IMPLAN Municipal 10.04.15 area Isabel Director of IMPLAN Municipal 08.04.15 project Edgar Director of IMPLAN Municipal 08.04.15 area Miriam Coordinator IMPLAN/ Municipal 08.04.15 Convive Feliz Santiago Director Secretariado Municipal 21.03.15 Tecnico del Consejo de la Ciudad Jorge Director of Secretaria de Municipal 24.03.15 area Obras Publicas Javier Director of SEDUM Municipal 24.03.15 area

Tatiana Operative SEDESOL Municipal 25.03.15 coordinator /Federal Mariana Founder/Direct CECADEC Municipal 14.04.15 or Cristian Director of SEGUOT State 23.03.15 area

Aguascalientes Daniel Director of SEGUOT State 23.03.15

314

area Victor Director of SEGUOT State 23.03.15 area Marco Sub-delegado SEDATU State/Federal 22.04.15 Nadia President Colegio de Municipal 13.04.15 Urbanistas

Annex 3

Semi-structured interviews with community members and planning officials by colonia and city

No. Name Date Location Age Sex Details 1 Diana Feb 2015 5 de Febrero, 48 F Conducted work as Culiacan programme coordinator 2 Juan Jan 2015 5 de Febrero, 52 M Works as a security Culiacan night watchman 3 Jose Jan 2015 5 de Febrero, 49 M 5 de Febrero Culiacan community leader 4 Culiacan Jan 2015 5 de Febrero, 28 F NGO Working in 5 Participa Culiacan de Febrero 5 Circo Feb 2015 5 de Febrero, 32 F NGO Working in 5 Volador Culiacan de Febrero 6 DIF 5 de Feb 2015 5 de Febrero, 36 F Director DIF 5 de Febrero Culiacan Febrero 7 Caro Feb 2015 5 de Febrero, 68 F Former community Culiacan leader 8 Profesor Feb 2015 5 de Febrero, 49 M Director of Antonio Culiacan elementary school 9 Baldovino Feb 2015 5 de Febrero, 52 M Legal department Culiacan CESAVVI 10 Sebastian Mar 2015 Culiacan, Sinaloa 47 M State Planning 11 Efren Jan 2015 Culiacan, Sinaloa 43 M Municipal Planning, IMPLAN 12 Melisa Mar 2015 Colonia Centro, 37 F Housewife and Culiacan resident, Colonia Centro 13 Rafa Mar 2015 Colonia Centro, 56 M Resident, Colonia Culiacan Centro 14 Mauricio Mar 2015 Colonia Centro, 34 M Resident, Colonia Culiacan Centro 15 Luis Mar 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 84 M Community leader Aguascalientes 16 Tomas April 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 49 M Resident Los Aguascalientes Pericos 17 Clarisa Mar 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 37 F Resident Los Aguascalientes Pericos, community

315

leader 18 Thalia April 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 35 F Resident Los Aguascalientes Pericos 19 Gloria April 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 43 F Resident Los Aguascalientes Pericos 20 Mariana April 2015 Aguascalientes, 65 F NGO CECADEC Aguascalientes 21 Alicia April 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 23 F Resident Los Aguascalientes Pericos 22 Sofia May 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 68 F Resident Los Aguascalientes Pericos 23 Itzel May 2015 Colonia Los Pericos, 25 F Resident Los Aguascalientes Pericos 24 Adrian May 2015 Barrio de San 36 M Resident Barrio de Marcos, San Marcos Aguascalientes 25 Catalina May 2015 Barrio de San 26 F Resident Barrio de Marcos, San Marcos Aguascalientes 26 Teresa May 2015 Barrio de San 54 F Resident Barrio de Marcos, San Marcos Aguascalientes

Annex 4

Participatory mapping and auto-photography participants

No. Pseudonym Age Gender Community City 1 Jose 49 Male 5 de Febrero Culiacan 2 Juan 52 Male 5 de Febrero Culiacan 3 Caro 64 Female 5 de Febrero Culiacan 4 Reina 38 Female 5 de Febrero Culiacan 5 Melisa 37 Female Colonia Centro Culiacan 6 Mauricio 34 Male Colonia Centro Culiacan 7 Rafa 56 Male Colonia Centro Culiacan 8 Itzel 25 Female Los Pericos Aguascalientes 9 Clarisa 37 Female Los Pericos Aguascalientes 10 Thalia 35 Female Los Pericos Aguascalientes 11 Gloria 43 Female Los Pericos Aguascalientes 12 Adrian 36 Male Barrio de San Marcos Aguascalientes 13 Catalina 26 Female Barrio de San Marcos Aguascalientes

316

Annex 5

Semi-structured interviews guide

Escuela de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo Instituto de Políticas y Gestión del Desarrollo Planeación participativa en México. Natalia García, Estudiante Doctoral

Guía para entrevistas

Se presentan los temas indicativos que serán abordados con los integrantes de la comunidad, personal de la municipalidad y académicos en las entrevistas semi- estructuradas que serán conducidas. Estas preguntas serán terminadas y/o adaptadas durante la primera etapa del trabajo de campo. Introducción La primera etapa de la entrevista semi-estructurada será la presentación del investigador, el propósito de proyecto de investigación y las expectativas del estudio. Confidencialidad, anonimato y el derecho de los participantes de retirarse del estudio, cuestionario o entrevista será explicado en esta etapa. A. Bosquejo indicativo para las entrevistas con miembros de la comunidad. Preguntas de antecedentes Las preguntas de antecedentes se realizan con la intención de ayudar al investigador a construir un perfil de la comunidad estudiada, a evaluar la situación actual de la comunidad con respecto a asuntos de planeación urbana y percepciones de inseguridad. Adicionalmente, la pertinencia de los miembros de la comunidad participantes en la investigación será evaluada, de acuerdo a las características requeridas de los participantes, tales como edad, genero, ubicación geográfica de su hogar (dentro de la comunidad), etc. Esto permitirá al investigador identificar al participante si más detalles o información es necesaria.

-Información básica del participante Edad Sexo Estatus civil Empleo principal Nivel de educación Número de personas viviendo en el hogar Relación con el jefe del hogar Tiempo viviendo en el área Medio de subsistencia del hogar Número de personas que trabajan en el hogar Empleo de otras personas viviendo en el hogar Rango de ingreso mensual o gastos Preguntas sobre participación y planeación Estas preguntas están diseñadas para evaluar la participación del individuo en la comunidad. Las preguntas permitirán al investigador entender las diferentes dinámicas de poder entre miembros de la comunidad y su interacción con instituciones de planeación del Estado/Municipio. Algunas de estas preguntas, tal como el involucramiento en la conceptualización o implementación de políticas o proyectos

317 futuros o pasados se dirigirán a líderes de la comunidad, ya que no se espera que todos los individuos estén o hayan estado relacionados con proyectos institucionales. ¿Usted se considera activamente involucrado en asuntos de su comunidad? ¿Cómo se involucra? ¿Sabe si su comunidad se ha organizado para resolver asuntos con respecto a provisión de servicios básicos? ¿Sabe si su comunidad ha sido consultada en asuntos de planeación urbana? ¿Está usted satisfecho con la provisión actual de servicios, como el agua? ¿Está usted satisfecho con la provisión actual de servicios, como la electricidad? ¿Está usted satisfecho con la provisión actual de servicios, como la recolección de basura? ¿Está usted satisfecho con las condiciones actuales de las calles y banquetas? ¿Está usted satisfecho con las condiciones actuales del transporte público? ¿Cree usted que la situación actual de la planeación urbana y la configuración del espacio satisface sus necesidades? ¿Porque? ¿Ha sido alguna vez consultado por la municipalidad respecto a proyectos de desarrollo urbano que conciernen a su comunidad? ¿Cuáles proyectos? Apoyo institucional ¿Usted sabe cuáles son las instituciones responsables por el desarrollo urbano y planeación de su comunidad? ¿Sabe si hay presencia de organizaciones no gubernamentales? ¿Podría resumir los cambios más relevantes que ha tenido el espacio físico de su comunidad en la última década o en los últimos 5 años? Preguntas relacionadas a la percepción de seguridad Estas preguntas son diseñadas con el afán de entender como los individuos perciben el espacio público de su comunidad. Las preguntas permitirán al investigador comprender como y si la incidencia de la violencia y el crimen común han cambiado los usos del espacio público de la comunidad. ¿Ha tenido problemas relacionados a la configuración física de su comunidad? (Por ejemplo, la parada de autobús es muy lejana, no hay iluminación, etc) ¿Su forma de usar el espacio urbano ha cambiado? ¿En qué forma? (Si no sale de noche, evita ciertas áreas, etc) ¿Se siente usted seguro circulando en transporte público en la ciudad? ¿Se siente usted seguro circulando en transporte público en su comunidad? ¿Qué tan seguido siento miedo de que algo pueda pasarle en este lugar? ¿Que afecta su percepción de seguridad? ¿Usted ha sido víctima de un incidente violento o un crimen en espacios públicos? ¿En dónde ocurrió el incidente? ¿Qué tan seguido escucha que personas han tenido problemas en este lugar? ¿Qué cambios en el espacio construido cree que lo harían sentir más seguro? ¿Si alguien intenta asaltarlo o robarlo, cree que hay personas que podrían ayudarlo? ¿Qué tan relacionado se siente hacia el espacio público de su comunidad? ¿Cómo se relaciona o usa el espacio público de su comunidad? B. Estructura indicativa para entrevistas con personal de la municipalidad Por favor note: Estas preguntas variaran dependiendo de las características de cada institución u organización consultada. La muestra es indicativa y no representa la totalidad de las preguntas que podrían ser realizadas.

318

Preguntas de antecedentes. Estas preguntas permitirán al investigador identificar el involucramiento de las instituciones en la comunidad y también permitirán entender el enfoque tomado por los responsables de un proyecto/ política o medida desde su conceptualización hasta su implementación. Estas entrevistas se realizaran con actores claves trabajando en instituciones del estado relacionadas a la planeación urbana y participación ciudadana. También, permitirán al investigador identificar al participante en caso de requerir mayor información. Información básica sobre el participante: Edad Nacionalidad Estado civil Años trabajando en su puesto Información general sobre la institución/organización Nombre Enfoque/misión/visión Proyectos Integración de los marcos de la institución a políticas/proyectos o medidas especificas Resultados esperados de proyectos Tipo de seguimiento a proyectos Preguntas sobre participación y planeación urbana Estas preguntas están diseñadas para entender como la participación es entendida e implementada por el estado. Permitirán al investigador entender los procesos de planeación y participación llevados a cabo por el estado. Algunas de estas preguntas como el involucramiento en la conceptualización o implementación de políticas o proyectos específicos serán dirigidas a actores claves de la municipalidad (directores de áreas estratégicas, coordinadores de proyectos, etc.) ¿Cuál es el rol de la institución que lo emplea? ¿Cuál es la misión, visión y objetivos? ¿Puede describir la organización de la institución? ¿Está usted al tanto de proyectos o medidas en planeación urbana que integren participación ciudadana? ¿En qué forma? ¿Cómo se financian los proyectos de la institución? ¿Son evaluados? ¿Ha habido cambios notables en material de planeación urbana? Información respecto a mecanismos y marcos de participación ciudadana y planeación urbana Opinión sobre las limitaciones o potenciales de los marcos ¿Cómo se traducen a proyectos, medidas o políticas? ¿Quiénes son los responsables de su implementación? Preguntas relacionadas a percepción de seguridad ¿Cuáles son las principales políticas que responden a la violencia urbana desde su institución? ¿Cuál es la información que usted conoce sobre estrategias de reducción de violencia de otras instituciones? ¿Cómo se traducen a proyectos, medidas o programas? ¿Quiénes son los responsables de su implementación? ¿Alguna de estas políticas tiene un enfoque urbano? ¿Cómo se implementan? ¿Quién las financia?

319

¿Hay algún involucramiento de comunidades en el diseño e implementación de dichos programas? ¿Los resultados son evaluados? C. Entrevistas con académicos u organizaciones no gubernamentales Estas preguntas permitirán al investigador identificar el involucramiento de los académicos en asuntos de participación en planeación urbana y respuestas institucionales a la violencia urbana. Información básica sobre el participante: Edad Nacionalidad Estado civil Años trabajando en su puesto Información general sobre la institución/organización Nombre Enfoque/misión/visión Proyectos Integración de los marcos de la institución a políticas/proyectos o medidas especificas Resultados esperados de proyectos Tipo de seguimiento a proyectos

Información respecto a mecanismos y marcos de participación ciudadana y planeación urbana Opinión sobre las limitaciones o potenciales de los marcos Información respecto a respuestas institucionales a la violencia

320

Annex 6 Survey questionnaire

School of Environment and Development Institute for Development Policy and Management, School of Environment and Development ‘Participatory Planning for crime prevention in Mexico’ Cuestionario

Natalia Garcia, PhD Student

1. Información del participante 1.1. Edad 1.2. Sexo 1.3. Estado Civil 1.4. Empleo principal 1.5. Nivel de educación 1.6. Número de personas viviendo en el hogar 1.7. Relación con el jefe de hogar 1.8. Número de personas que trabajan en el hogar 1.8.1. Principal empleo de otros integrantes 1.9. Rango de ingreso mensual o gastos 2. Participacion 2.1. Hace cuanto vive en el area? 2.2. Que tan apegado es usted al areaen la que vive? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1. Muy apegado 2. Apegado 3. Ni apegado ni desapegado 4. Desapegado 5. Muy desapegado 2.3. ¿Qué tan integrado se siente usted como parte de la comunidad local? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1. Muy integrado 2. Integrado 3. Poco integrado 4.No tiene relación con la comunidad 2.4. Actualmente, ¿está usted involucrado en alguna organización o grupo vecinal? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta Yes 1 No 2 Not applicable 3 Does not know / Does not answer 4 2.5. En su comunidad, ha tenido problemas con respecto a: Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 2.5.1. Falta de alumbrado en las calles 2.5.2. Escasez de agua 2.5.3. Baches o fugas de agua 2.5.4. Actividades violentas de pandillas 2.5.5. Robos o delincuencia en los alrededores

321

2.6. ¿Sus vecinos se han organizado para resolver alguno de los problemas mencionados anteriormente? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 2.7. ¿Ha habido presencia de instituciones del estado o la municipalidad que involucren participación? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 2.8. ¿Ha estado involucrado en algún esquema formal de participación? Si es así, por favor especifique Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 2.9. ¿Está usted al tanto de algún tipo de legislación, reglamento o programa de participación ciudadana? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 2.10. ¿Qué tipos de proyectos han sido implementados en su comunidad? Por favor especifique

2.11. ¿Cuál fue su participación? Por favor especifique

3. Planeacion urbana 3.1. ¿Según su conocimiento, su comunidad ha estado involucrada en asuntos de planeación urbana? Si es así, por favor especifique. Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.2. ¿Ha estado usted involucrado o ha sido consultado en proyectos de desarrollo urbano por la municipalidad? Si es asi, por favor especifique. Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.3. ¿Ha sido usted contactado por la empresa proveedora de agua en materia de provisión de servicios o futuros proyectos? (JAPAC, CONAGUA) Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.4. ¿Ha sido usted contactado por la empresa proveedora de electricidad en materia de provisión de servicios o futuros proyectos? (CFE) Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.5. ¿Ha estado usted involucrado en decisiones con respecto a espacios públicos o transporte? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta

322

1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.6. ¿Ha estado usted involucrado o ha sido consultado por IMPLAN o alguna otra institución en decisiones con respecto a planeación urbana que afecten su comunidad? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.7. ¿Sabe usted cuales son las instituciones responsables por la planeación de la ciudad? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.8. ¿Sabe usted cuales son las instituciones responsables por la planeación de su comunidad? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.9. ¿La planeacion y configuracion actual de su comunidad satisfice sus necesidades? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.10. ¿Ha notado cambios en el entorno construido en las últimas décadas? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.11. ¿Está usted satisfecho con la disponibilidad de espacios públicos o áreas recreacionales en su comunidad? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.12. ¿Tiene algún tipo de problemática en su comunidad? Si es asi, por favor especifique Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 3.13. ¿Evita usted algún área cuando transita de noche? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 4. 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 4.1. ¿Cree usted que es una comunidad segura para caminar, transitar o utilizar transporte público? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 4.2. ¿Ha usted cambiado algunas rutas para moverse en la ciudad o en su comunidad? Si es asi, especifique. Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta

323

1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 4.3. ¿Ha sido usted testigo de algún cambio por parte de su comunidad en el uso de espacios públicos? Si es así, por favor especifique. Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 4.4. ¿Cree usted que la configuración actual de la comunidad satisfice sus necesidades? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 4.5. ¿Está usted al tanto de cuáles son las instancias o instituciones a las que puede acudir sobre temas de planeación urbana o asuntos de infraestructura? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 4.6. ¿Está usted al tanto de proyectos o programas en curso sobre planeación urbana de la ciudad? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 4.7. ¿Está usted al tanto de proyectos o programas en curso sobre planeación urbana en su comunidad? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 5. Inseguridad Ahora se le harán preguntas en torno a la percepción que usted tiene sobre su seguridad y el ambiente construido.

5.1. De los siguientes temas, ¿cuál o cuáles considera usted su mayor preocupación? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta

Pobreza Desempleo Trafico de drogas Inseguridad Inflación o aumento de precios Desastres naturales Escasez de agua Corrupción Educación Salud Impunidad Otros No sabe o no responde 4.2 Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 5.1.1. En esta comunidad, todos los vecinos nos conocemos (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO) 5.1.2. Me gusta vivir en esta comunidad (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO) 5.1.3. Si pudiera, me gustaría vivir en otra comunidad en la ciudad (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO) 5.1.4. La mayoría de las personas en esta comunidad son muy cercanas (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO)

324

5.1.5. La mayoría de las personas en esta comunidad tiene costumbres y tradiciones similares (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO) 5.1.6. Me siento muy identificado con esta comunidad (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO) 5.1.7. Antes de hablar conmigo, usted se sentia en este lugar (SEGURO INSEGURO) 5.1.8. Cuando está usted en este lugar o los alrededores, normalmente se siente (SEGURO INSEGURO) 5.1.9. Comparado con otros lugares en Culiacán, donde usted regularmente se encuentra se siente (SEGURO INSEGURO) 5.1.10. Durante las últimas semanas, ¿qué tan seguido escucha que personas cercanas a usted han tenido algún problema en este lugar?(SEGUIDO NO MUY SEGUIDO) 5.1.11. Durante las últimas semanas, que tan seguido ha experimentado o visto algun problema en este lugar?(SEGUIDO NO MUY SEGUIDO) 5.1.12. Durante las últimas semanas, que tan seguido ha tenido miedo de que algo le pase en este lugar? (SEGUIDO NO MUY SEGUIDO) 5.1.13. Yo opino que esta comunidad es muy (SEGURO INSEGURO) 5.1.14. Personas cercanas a mi piensan que este luga es muy (SEGURO INSEGURO) 5.1.15. La mayoría de la población en Culiacán pensaría que este lugar es muy (SEGURO INSEGURO) 5.1.16. Si alguien intentara asaltarme o robarme, hay personas que podrían ayudarme (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO) 5.1.17. En general, me asusto o preocupo fácilmente (DE ACUERDO DESACUERDO) 5.1.18. La iluminación por la noche de este lugar es adecuada (0–10) 5.1.19. El mantenimiento general de este lugar es adecuado (0-10) 5.1.20. Este lugar es agradable (0–10) 5.1.21. Este lugar es limpio (0–10) 5.1.22. Este lugar es seguro (0–10) 5.1.23. 4.3 Digame si se siente seguro en... 1 Seguro 2 Inseguro 3 No es relevante 4 No sabe o no resopnde a. Casa b. Trabajo c. Caminando por la calle d. Escuela e. Mercado f. Centro comercial g. Banco h. Cajero automatico i. Usando transporte publico j. En su vehiculo k. En la carretera

325

l. En el parque o espacios publicos 4.4 ¿Es usted consciente o ha escuchado si en los alrededores de su comunidad alguna de las siguientes situaciones se ha presentado? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta a. Consumo de alcochol en la calleAlcohol consumption on the street b. Hay pandillas o violencia de pandillas c. Hay discusiones entre vecinos d. Venta ilegal de alcohol e. Productos de pirateria son comercializados f. Hay violencia de la policia hacia los ciudadanos g. Se venden drogas h. Se consumen drogas i. Hay asaltos o robos frecuentes j. Hay tiroteos frecuentes k. Ha habido secuestros l. Ha habido asesinatos m. Ha habido extorsiones n. Ninguna de las anteriores o no sabe o no responde 4.5 Actualmente en los lugares que usted transita o por el tipo de actividades que realiza, ¿cree que algo de lo siguiente podría pasarle? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde Accidente autimovilistico Asalto o robo en la calle o transporte publico Heridas por aggression fisica Extorsion o secuestro demandando dinero o propiedades 4.6 En algún momento, por miedo a ser víctima de un crimen, ha usted evitado: Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 5 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 5.2.1 Salir de noche 5.2.2 Permitir que sus hijos menores de edad salgan de noche 5.2.3 Visitar parientes o amigos 5.2.4 Usar un taxi 5.2.5 Usar transporte publico 5.2.6 Portar efectivo 5.2.7 Ir a la escuela 5.2.8 Salir a caminar 5.2.9 Usar joyeria 5.3 ¿Ha realizado alguna mejora en su hogar como medida de precaución contra la delincuencia? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde 5.3.1 Cambiar puertas o ventanas 5.3.2 Instalar o cambiar candados o cerraduras

326

5.3.3 Poner o reforzar cercas o puertas 5.3.4 Instalar alarmas o camaras de seguridad 5.3.5 Contratar seguridad privada para la comunidad 5.3.6 Organizar actividades conjuntas con su comunidad o sus vecinos 5.3.7 Comprar seguros 5.3.8 Comprar un perro guardian 5.3.9 Adquirir arrmas de fuego 5.3.10 Cambiar de casa o residencia 5.3.11 Otra medida 5.4 ¿Ha sido usted víctima de un crimen en esta área? Por favor subraye o encierre su respuesta 1 Si 2 No 3 No aplica 4 No sabe o no responde

Source: Author, based on Carro-Valera and Vidal 2010, and ENVIPE (2013)

Annex 7

Participatory mapping and auto-photography activity example

327