Integrating Security-by-Design into Sustainable Urban Planning for Safer, More Accessible, and Livable Public Spaces

Abstract

This paper investigates how security-by-design principles can be integrated into urban planning to achieve a balance between protective measures and the openness, accessibility, and aesthetic quality of public spaces. Addressing a current gap in urban design practice, we introduce a new evaluative framework—the SAFE-CITIES “Atlas 4 Safe Public Spaces”—that embeds European policy guidelines, CPTED concepts, and New European Bauhaus values into an integrated security-by-design assessing tool. Drawing on the Horizon Europe SAFE-CITIES project (Grant Agreement No. 101073945), the research combines theoretical insights from EU policy documents and design principles with a comparative analysis of two case studies (Barcelona and Copenhagen) to inform practical strategies for integrating safety considerations into the design process. This approach identifies key operational principles that illustrate how safety measures—if considered from the early-stage planning—can be integrated without compromising openness and livability of public, illustrating how early-stage planning can incorporate security measures while sustaining social interaction and community life. Overall, the findings show that safety can be built into public space design from the outset, reinforcing community engagement and resilience, and the proposed Atlas framework offers planners a concrete tool to align security objectives with on-the-ground urban design practice.

1. Introduction

Public space represents a privileged arena for multiple forms of urban life—social interaction, cultural expression, and civic engagement [1]—that can create an ever-evolving network of relationships. It plays a central role in shaping the urban landscape and fostering manifestations of the public sphere, whether spontaneous or planned. This quality is influenced by the very characteristics of spaces, concerning which urban design can help to set up the conditions for everyday activities, uses, new opportunities, and forms of appropriation.

Among the many perspectives from which to investigate the dynamics influencing public space design, that of security is certainly primary, especially considering the rising complexity of urban risks—including terrorism, crime, and social disorder [2]. Security is an essential requirement to be ensured, especially for sites that, due to their attractiveness and crowding [3], are to be considered more vulnerable to potential threats [4] (p. 94). Examples include a wide range of functional categories, encompassing tourist sites, transport hubs, shopping malls, places of worship, outdoor markets, concert halls, city squares, parks, streets, pedestrian areas, sporting events, and festivals [5].

Ensuring a balance between the protection and openness of public spaces is a complex factor that the design process cannot fail to address. It is a challenge that requires an integrated and adaptive approach that, in addition to considering safety measures in the management and planning of the activities that take place in urban spaces, cannot disregard their physical, cultural, and social features to guarantee that such spaces remain welcoming, accessible, aesthetically pleasing, and inviting so that residents and/or visitors can gather, socialize and interact with the built environment [6]. Beyond that, design interventions on public spaces must align with a multitude of standards and regulations, including those related to mobility, access, and transit of emergency vehicles, escape routes, requirements for disabled users, fire safety procedures, environmental and cultural heritage legislation, other local urban parameters, and so on. Added to these are more ‘intangible’ aspects, such as preservation and enhancement of historical and heritage value (if applicable), the maintenance of consolidated uses, and balancing public and private interests. Such a complex task confirms the need to improve the level of integration between security measures and characteristics that make public spaces places of relationships, allowing the performance of a variety of activities and a sociable environment [7].

2. Research Goals and Methodology

Building upon the Horizon Europe SAFE-CITIES project (GA No. 101073945), the present work aims to explore how protective measures can be integrated into architectural and urban planning in a way that achieves an effective balance between security, accessibility, usability, and openness of public spaces. In this context, “balance” is understood in qualitative terms—i.e., security solutions are seamlessly integrated into the design and furnishings of public spaces, rather than added as separate technical elements. Methodologically, the study is supported by a theoretical framework linking EU policy documents and guidelines (which encourage the adoption of a security-by-design approach to public space) with the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) framework and the New European Bauhaus (NEB) principles. This is coupled with a critical analysis of case studies from two European cities (Barcelona and Copenhagen) that demonstrate integrated security approaches, and the development of the SAFE-CITIES Atlas 4 Safe Public Spaces Design—guiding framework presented as an operational and methodological tool to assess security-by-design interventions. The two city cases were selected based on their prominence in implementing security-by-design features in urban renewal—criteria detailed in Section 4—serving as illustrative examples rather than an exhaustive survey. It should also be noted that the Atlas is introduced as a conceptual framework; thus, its evaluation has so far been limited to ensuring internal coherence and expert review within the SAFE-CITIES research consortium, with pilot applications planned as future work.

This study advances the current literature on the design of secure and inclusive public spaces by proposing a functional frame that integrates different EU policy streams, handbooks (see for example, [8,9]), theoretical principles (such as CPTED and NEB), and design methodologies into a unified and scalable assessment tool (the SAFE-CITIES Atlas). While prior work has often focused on targeted strategies (e.g., surveillance technologies, participatory design, or CPTED), the SAFE-CITIES Atlas introduces a transversal and multi-level approach that links spatial interventions to planning, regulatory, and stakeholders’ engagement practices. This integrated perspective represents a novel contribution to the field of urban public space security, bridging the gap between high-level policy recommendations and practical design tools.

3. Preliminary Analysis

3.1. Policy Context: EU Guidelines for Public Space Security

The European Union or the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) has published several guidelines and manuals [4,5,10,11] to help public institutions develop common approaches for reducing the vulnerability of public spaces to various threats. The overarching, cross-cutting vision outlined in these policy documents calls for both preventive measures and effective response mechanisms that seamlessly integrate security, openness, aesthetics, livability, and accessibility in public spaces—considering the unique context of each site and emphasizing multilevel governance with stakeholder collaboration [12]. According to this perspective, improving the protection of sites considered to be at risk must include both specific actions on the built environment (related as much to the design of spaces as to technological support) and active cooperation among all actors, to involve them in the safety planning processes. Specifically, on this last key aspect, the ‘Urban Agenda for the EU’ stresses how the ‘Partnership on Security in Public Spaces’ could “offer an encompassing and holistic vision of urban security… based on an integrated approach and on local field experience” highlighting local authorities as “full-fledged actors in improving security” through multilevel governance” [10].

More operational indications and guidelines are provided by the Commission Staff Working document. Good practices to support the protection of public spaces [13]. These good practices, intended as a reference for practitioners and public authorities, cover four main areas: (1) assessment and planning—which underlines the importance of developing vulnerability assessments, security and crisis management plans, designated roles, and training for those responsible for security coordination; (2) awareness and training—referring to public awareness campaigns on recognizing suspicious behaviors or knowing how to react in case of incidents, thereby contributing to a widespread security culture; (3) physical protection of spaces—advocating that security and protection considerations be integrated early in the design process of a facility, public space, or event (involving public and private entities), including the implementation of access controls and barriers that do not create new vulnerabilities, and the adoption of appropriate detection technologies; and (4) cooperation—clarifying roles and responsibilities in public–private security collaborations, improving coordination across local, regional, and national levels, and enhancing communication, information exchange, and the broad sharing of best practices and guidance. Despite the availability of these comprehensive EU guidelines, a notable gap is their non-binding nature, which has led to uneven implementation across different contexts. This limitation underscores the importance of developing tools and methods—such as the one presented in this paper—to operationalize the recommended integrated approach at the local level, so as to facilitate its future consolidation as a good design practice.

3.2. The ‘Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design—CPTED’ Framework

The policy documents mentioned in the previous paragraph point toward the adoption of a holistic and collaborative approach to the protection of public spaces, directly involving institutions and policymakers, recognizing the crucial role of prevention based on the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) framework [14]. CPTED is a multi-disciplinary methodology focusing on urban and architectural design and the management of built and natural environments to create safer and more livable public spaces [15].

CPTED considers the physical features and elements present in each urban site to prevent criminal events, following a set of key concepts that can be summarized as follows:

• Territoriality: encouraging a sense of ownership and responsibility for a specific place by the local community;
• Natural surveillance: designing spaces that maximize visibility and informal oversight by residents and passersby, thereby promoting social interaction and observation;
• Access control: implementing well-defined, recognizable entry and exit points or barriers that deter unauthorized access;
• Maintenance and management: ensuring spaces are well-maintained to avoid any perception of neglect or abandonment (thus addressing the idea that disorder can invite crime);
• Activity support: promoting functions and uses (e.g., playgrounds, community events) that generate natural public presence and enhance perceptions of safety;
• Target hardening: physically protecting specific vulnerable targets through security measures.

Operationally, these CPTED concepts translate into specific design strategies aimed at enhancing safety (to prevent and protect against unintentional harm) and security (to prevent and protect against intentional acts) in public spaces, with additional expected benefits, such as crime reduction, improved quality of life, a stronger sense of community, and even increased property value [16]. Examples of such strategies include the following: displaying security system signage at access points as both a deterrent and a reminder of protective measures; fostering mixed-use neighborhoods and multimodal transit (to ensure activity around the clock and more “eyes on the street”); installing visible surveillance systems like CCTV (complemented by police presence); planning social and recreational activities to increase the vibrancy of spaces; placing amenities in shared areas to attract more users; ensuring adequate street lighting; and following clear design guidelines for street furniture and materials to support safety [8]. While these principles provide a general toolkit, their application must be adapted to local cultural and historical contexts. For instance, implementing CPTED in a heritage-rich urban area might require subtle, context-sensitive measures. This nuance is addressed in our approach by using CPTED principles as foundational references and then critically integrating them through the Atlas framework to suit specific place-based needs.

3.3. The ‘Security-by-Design’ Approach to Urban Planning

The environmental design-based approach to risk prevention and mitigation outlined by CPTED lays the groundwork for the more recently formulated concept of security-by-design in urban planning. The European Commission defines security-by-design as “urban design integrating security measures into public spaces and streets without compromising the functions or aesthetics of the space” in its handbook Security by design: Protection of public spaces from terrorist attacks [4] (pp. 22–27). This approach embeds proportional, multifunctional, and aesthetically conscious safety measures in urban design and emphasizes incorporating security considerations from the early stages of the design and planning process to ensure the harmonious coexistence of safety with the urban livability of public spaces.

According to the EU handbook, security-by-design is guided by four main principles:

• Proportionality: security measures should be adequate and balanced with respect to the risk, to minimize impact on everyday social and economic activities;
• Multi-functionality: safety considerations should be integrated from the early design stages, leading to solutions that serve multiple purposes and exhibit high aesthetic quality while also containing construction costs;
• Stakeholder cooperation: a holistic collaboration among stakeholders (authorities, architects, urban designers, planners, police/security experts, civil society, etc.) is necessary to achieve public spaces equipped with effective, well-designed security solutions;
• Design aesthetics: protective solutions should be embedded into the morphology and design of public spaces in ways that combine aesthetics, comfort, usability, and functionality, providing safety without being intrusive or provoking anxiety/fear in the public.

The security-by-design concept, along with practical guidance on implementing these principles, is elaborated in the EU handbook through case studies. In applying these principles, it is often necessary to balance potential interferences between them. For example, ensuring a high level of security (proportionality) must be weighed against maintaining a welcoming appearance (design aesthetics); similarly, adding multiple functions/uses or addressing diverse stakeholders’ needs could complicate achieving a clear and coherent design outcome. We mention such practical trade-offs in our discussion, highlighting that successful security-by-design requires carefully negotiating these principles to avoid conflicts and ensure they complement each other in practice.

3.4. The New European Bauhaus (NEB) Initiative

The integrated approach promoted by European policy documents—emphasizing stakeholder cooperation and security-by-design for public spaces—finds a strong alliance with the pillars of the New European Bauhaus (NEB) [17]. Launched by President von der Leyen in 2020 to support the EU Green Deal, NEB encourages enhancing cities’ capabilities through citizen engagement and behavior change. It aligns three core values as key design drivers: beauty (quality beyond mere functionality), sustainability (including climate goals, circularity, zero pollution, and biodiversity), and inclusiveness (including accessibility and affordability), while also stressing co-creation and citizen engagement to improve the democratic quality of public spaces.

Notably, safety has emerged as one of the challenges within the NEB discourse. For instance, stakeholders in the 2022 NEB call “Co-creation of public spaces” identified safety as a key concern [18], reinforcing the emphasis on open, co-designed solutions for creating beautiful, sustainable, and inclusive public spaces. Similarly, the European Urban Initiative’s NEB-related call described urban regeneration as providing “universal access to safe, open, and inclusive green and/or public spaces” [19]. Thus, the NEB framework strongly associates the safety and inclusiveness of public spaces as essential conditions for achieving livable and beautiful cities. It is relevant to specify that the integration of NEB principles with concrete security practices in public space design is a lens adopted by the SAFE-CITIES consortium to observe existing practices and analyze public spaces examples, with the aim of proposing this new perspective in the Atlas. To date, few implemented projects explicitly combine NEB’s aesthetic and inclusive values with safety-by-design measures. This lack of established examples highlights the innovative character of our work: by embedding NEB values into a security assessment framework, we are taking initial steps toward uniting these dimensions in practice.

3.5. Cross-Cutting Considerations on the Reference Framework

The various frameworks discussed—European policies, security-by-design principles, CPTED methods, and the New European Bauhaus—converge on a shared vision: security measures in public spaces should be tailored to local characteristics and conceived as an integral part of the design process. This includes not only physical and operational strategies but also the involvement of end-users (e.g., residents, businesses, civil society, etc.) in both planning and co-design phases [4,5,10,13,17,18,19].

Such an integrated approach does not aim to replace more established strategies—such as maintaining public order through law enforcement or social interventions to mitigate vulnerability—but rather to complement them. Embedding safety and security principles into spatial design expands the urban toolbox for fostering social inclusion and crime prevention [13,15,16,20]. This perspective has been explored in urban design scholarship, including critical developments of CPTED theory and environmental criminology [9,21].

Despite such official endorsements of design-driven strategies, a significant gap remains between high-level recommendations and on-the-ground implementation. Although official policy documents emphasize the need for integrated, participatory and design-driven strategies, urban safety is still too often reduced to visible security technologies or ad hoc installations. Examples include widespread reliance on CCTV surveillance, biometric scanners, or stand-alone barriers: measures that may restrict usability and, paradoxically, increase the perception of control or insecurity [8,20].

This disconnect arises partly from the complexity of implementing integrated methods and partly from a limited awareness among some public authorities about the benefits of design-led approaches. Too often, urban safety responses remain detached from the morphological, social, and symbolic nature of the places they intend to protect [4,17].

It is necessary, therefore, to move beyond a safety paradigm based exclusively on surveillance and enforcement. Instead, public space interventions should be framed as opportunities to enhance urban quality and social value. Participatory models and co-creative practices—such as those advocated by the New European Bauhaus—can help redefine security as a collective good that contributes to the beauty, inclusiveness, and sustainability of cities [17,18,19].

4. Case Studies of Security-by-Design Urban Public Spaces

Research into effective strategies for integrating safety into urban life was deepened through the analysis of public-space design interventions in two European cities, Barcelona and Copenhagen. These cities were selected as best-practice references within the European context due to their strong track record of innovation in public space design, active experimentation with participatory processes, and concrete implementation of security-oriented urban strategies that go beyond surveillance-only measures. Both have received international recognition—for instance, Copenhagen was the European Green Capital in 2014, and multiple projects in Barcelona have won the European Prize for Urban Public Space—and they frequently rank highly in global livability indexes and are discussed in the academic literature. These acknowledgements underline their capacity to balance safety, openness, and urban quality through inclusive, security-by-design approaches.

4.1. Barcelona: Temporary Tactics for Safe Public Spaces

The first case study examines the public spaces design strategy promoted by the City of Barcelona, which uses a flexible and replicable method to test temporary solutions before carrying out permanent transformation. This approach has been implemented through the Superilla (“Superblock”) model—introduced in 2016—which has been systematically piloted in different parts of the city to reconfigure public spaces by combining mobility changes with added greenery and street furniture. Barcelona’s regular 19th century grid, designed by Ildefonds Cerdà, provides the basic unit for each “superblock”: a 3 × 3 block area (9 city blocks) where vehicular traffic is redirected around the perimeter, reserving the interior streets primarily for pedestrians and cyclists. Along the internal cross-axes, only a single lane for cars is maintained with speed limits reduced to 10 km/h. At intersections within the superblock, space freed from parking is redesigned with furniture, trees, planters, seating areas, and recreational equipment to encourage neighborhood public life in total safety [22]. The interventions have been executed via public design competitions and with the active involvement of citizens, shopkeepers, and residents, following an intervention model that includes a temporary experimentation phase prior to final transformation (Figure 1).

Barcelona’s Superilla approach has been extended through the Protegemos las Escuelas (“Let’s Protect Schools”) program [25], aimed at improving safety and accessibility in the public spaces adjacent to schools and educational centers. The strategy involves clearly demarcating school entrances/exits, closing streets to traffic during specific hours, reducing speed limits, and expanding open and green areas equipped with furniture and signage. As with the Superblock model, this tactic combines mobile, temporary elements (painted markings, planters, and movable seating) with more structural interventions. Design solutions are chosen case-by-case based on a catalog of recurring measures and through community involvement. Selection of the schools/areas to include in the program depends on factors such as traffic volume, environmental pollution levels, student number, and the network of pedestrian routes (Figure 2).

The Superilla and Protegemos las Escuelas initiatives are exemplary in implementing safety and security measures in an integrated manner alongside other objectives that enhance public space quality. For example, they advance sustainable mobility, encourage citizen involvement, and improve accessibility for all (e.g., by using curbless streets and tactile paving for people with visual impairments), while also revealing the latent potential of underused spaces and increasing urban biodiversity. Traffic calming and the expansion of pedestrian areas are achieved through tactical urbanism and participatory design, fostering safety through natural surveillance and the creation of multifunctional spaces [28]. It should be noted that—despite the availability of quantitative before-and-after data on safety perceptions, footfall, health and wellbeing, or incident rates [29,30,31]—our analysis of these projects focuses on their design and implementation aspects: such long-term impact evaluations lie beyond the scope of this study, which is centered on developing the design framework.

4.2. Copenhagen: Urban Spaces for the Representation of Public Life

The case studies in Copenhagen involve two public-space projects that are particularly significant as stages for urban life.

The first one is ‘Superkilen’, a linear urban park [32], located in a semi-peripheral, multicultural district marked by socioeconomic contrasts. This project, which opened in 2012 (designed by the Danish art collective Superflex in collaboration with Bjarke Ingels Group and Topotek1), aimed to redevelop the urban space while also achieving social regeneration. The intervention reconnected disparate parts of the neighborhood by creating a new public space distinguished by bold uses of color, varied paving materials, changes in ground topography, eclectic street furniture, and lush planting (Figure 3). Through a strong participatory process, the design phase became an opportunity for dialog among residents of different nationalities, cultures, and religions, leading to a shared creation of recreational spaces that reflect the community’s diversity. The project integrates multiple factors reflecting a safety-conscious design approach: for instance, the placement of furniture and trees helps protect vulnerable edges and access points; the inclusion of equipment for recreation encourages multifunctional uses; and the layout emphasizes sightlines between the park and surrounding residential blocks to encourage natural surveillance (Figure 4). In addition to becoming a major public hub and even a tourist attraction, Superkilen established a physical and social space of proximity—accessible, safe, and vibrant—which residents report has positively influenced their daily lives [33].

The second Copenhagen case is the redesign (completed in 2019 by GHB Landscape Architects [37]) of the entrance plaza of Christiansborg Palace—which houses the Danish Parliament, government offices, the Supreme Court, and the Royal Family’s reception rooms. The square, dominated by one façade of the palace and an equestrian statue, has long been a gathering place for political and public events, in addition to its symbolic importance for democratic institutions. The open space was reimagined to convey a visually calm, easily accessible environment where people can pass through, pause, or continue to assemble for demonstrations. The primary safety/security feature is fully integrated into the design: a simple palette of elements consisting of a cobblestone pavement (largely reusing stones from the previous layout) and a semi-circular ring of Nordic granite spheres (made of the same material as the building’s façade). These low, human-scale granite spheres have a smooth surface that invites spontaneous interaction (sitting, playing) while unobtrusively protecting the square’s perimeter (Figure 5). The intervention achieves a good trade-off between protecting a potentially high-risk site and enhancing historical heritage and public accessibility.

Copenhagen’s Superkilen park and the redesign of Christiansborg Palace Square demonstrate how protective elements can be embedded aesthetically into urban landscapes. These interventions align security needs with cultural heritage preservation and social inclusivity, supporting Copenhagen’s status as a global model for urban safety [39]. In both projects, rather than relying on visible surveillance cameras or ad-hoc barricades, the designers incorporated safety into the fundamental design components of the space—through landscaping, art, and context-appropriate street furniture—thereby maintaining the open and democratic character of the sites.

4.3. Lessons Learned from Case Studies

Although the Barcelona and Copenhagen initiatives differ in scale and context—Barcelona’s tactical, temporary interventions versus Copenhagen’s permanent, design-integrated solutions—both case studies demonstrate common principles for integrating safety-by-design into public spaces. Neither city relied on standardized or purely technology-driven measures; instead, each employed context-sensitive strategies grounded in design flexibility, stakeholder engagement, and the aesthetic integration of protective elements.

Three key lessons emerge from these experiences:

• Design flexibility: Both Barcelona and Copenhagen show that security objectives can be effectively integrated into broader urban regeneration strategies by using flexible, context-tailored designs. In Barcelona’s Superilla model and the Protegemos las Escuelas program, a phased “trial-and-adapt” approach (tactical urbanism with temporary installations) allowed designers and communities to iterate solutions. By limiting car traffic, enhancing visibility (natural surveillance), and testing interventions with low-impact, reversible elements, these initiatives fostered a perception of safety without resorting to overt control mechanisms. The emphasis was on soft security measures aligned with sustainable mobility and community-driven improvements, demonstrating that adaptable, interim design tactics can lead to permanent safety enhancements.
• Stakeholder engagement: The case studies underscore the importance of participatory processes in co-creating safer public spaces. In Barcelona, the active involvement of residents, local businesses, and school communities was integral to both the Superblock trials and the school streets program, ensuring that the security measures (e.g., street closures or new play areas) were well-received and tailored to user needs. Copenhagen’s Superkilen similarly used extensive community engagement—inviting people to contribute ideas and even suggest objects and symbols reflecting their cultural background—which not only enriched the design but also cultivated a sense of ownership and pride. This collaborative approach helped balance security needs and community ambitions, showing that stakeholder cooperation is not just a theoretical recommendation found in security-by-design guidelines but an operational ingredient for success. By involving users from the earliest stages, the projects mitigated potential conflicts (for example, concerns about surveillance or restrictions) and turned security features into amenities that people accept, welcome and use.
• Embedded security elements: The two cities provide examples of how safety measures can be seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric as multi-purpose design features. In Copenhagen’s Superkilen and Christiansborg Square projects, elements like benches, bollards, and landscape features double as protective barriers while also contributing to the aesthetic and social quality of the space—for example, benches and sculptural installations provide seating or play opportunities even as they function as unobtrusive security measures. Rather than a standalone security infrastructure, these measures are embedded into comprehensive design solutions that respect the context—be it a historic square or a neighborhood linear park—and even reinforce the identity and functionality of the place. In Barcelona, additions such as extended curbs, planters, and painted surfaces delineate safer pedestrian zones and calm traffic, but they are presented as enhancements to public space (providing greenery, seating, and play areas) rather than just security apparatus. These cases confirm that security-by-design is not a one-size-fits-all formula but a flexible approach adaptable to diverse urban conditions. When security is conceived as a spatial and social character—rather than a technical afterthought—it can become a catalyst for more inclusive, resilient, and attractive public spaces.

5. The SAFE-CITIES ‘Atlas 4 Safe Public Spaces’ Guiding Framework

Building upon the conceptual foundations and case-based insights outlined in Section 1, Section 2, Section 3 and Section 4, this section presents the authors’ original contribution to the field: the SAFE-CITIES Atlas. Developed as part of the Horizon Europe ‘SAFE-CITIES—riSk-based Approach For the protEction of public spaces in European CITIES’ project (https://safe-cities.eu/project/, accessed on 7 July 2025), the Atlas offers a structured tool to support the integration of safety, accessibility, and inclusiveness into the design and evaluation of public spaces. This contribution stems from applied research carried out within the project, which investigates how protection measures can be effectively aligned with openness and usability, key principles in contemporary urban security and adaptive spatial planning. SAFE-CITIES aims to deliver and demonstrate a security and vulnerability assessment framework supported by a modeling and simulation platform in order to ensure excellence in the protection of public spaces and to foster the engagement and cooperation among public and private actors.

Among the results developed within the project activities, the ‘Atlas 4 Safe Public Spaces Design’ guiding framework serves as a methodological assessment tool that integrates different design approaches (e.g., design-for-all, NEB values, and security-by-design principles as advocated by the European Commission) and combines recommendations addressing broad considerations—such as avoiding excessive risk sensitivity, or recognizing the cultural value of places—with more operational practices—for instance, related to spatial design or furniture arrangement, as well as hybrid solutions blending public art and environmentally sustainable features.

The Atlas’s dimensions and criteria were selected and refined through an iterative process involving comparative reviews of existing frameworks, internal workshops with project partners, and expert feedback to ensure that the framework’s content is comprehensive and practically grounded.

5.1. Objectives of the Tool

The Atlas is intended to function as a ‘compass’ for security-by-design interventions, supporting the evaluation of certain socio-technical aspects and spatial features that might not be considered in traditional security assessment protocols. The tool is designed to assist end-users, designers, and policy-makers across different urban contexts in Europe in both assessing and planning public-space design interventions—whether permanent projects, temporary installations, or events. It offers a flexible structure aligned with existing urban design practices and European policy objectives, while leaving open the possibility of integration into formal planning instruments or regulatory frameworks at a later implementation stage. At present, the Atlas is a qualitative framework focused on structured guidance rather than quantitative scoring or weight-based evaluation. In other words, it does not assign numeric scores or weights to criteria; instead, it provides a checklist and reflective prompts to ensure that key factors are considered. This approach emphasizes discussion and comprehensive understanding over calculation. A future evolution of the tool may evaluate to introduce comparative scoring or weighting features, contingent on pilot testing and multi-user feedback.

5.2. Reference Framework

The Atlas situates its theoretical foundation within a set of key documents from the European Commission, such as the Security-by-design: protection of public spaces from terrorist attacks (2022) and the Action plan to support the protection of public spaces (2017), among others. In terms of methodological structure, its primary inspiration is the New European Bauhaus Compass [40]—a tool developed to guide decision-makers in operationalizing the NEB’s core values (“beautiful, sustainable, together”) through working principles like participatory processes, multi-level engagement, and transdisciplinary collaboration. The NEB Compass presents its principles with different degrees of application (called ‘levels of ambition’), depending on how central a principle is to a project. For instance, for the principle of ‘participatory process’, the Compass defines three possible levels of implementation: ‘to consult’, ‘to co-develop’ and ‘to self-govern’. It also provides practical examples and guiding questions to help assess and apply NEB principles. This NEB Compass structure influenced the design of our Atlas by encouraging a layered and gradated approach to assessing public-space projects.

5.3. The Atlas Structure

The SAFE-CITIES Atlas is designed as a canvas organised in six interlinked sections: levels of attention, ambitions, recommendations, guiding questions, insights from case studies, and theoretical references (Figure 6).

• Levels of attention: This first organizing criterion (a term borrowed directly from the NEB Compass) defines three main “levels” to be considered when assessing an urban space design in terms of safety/security, inclusiveness, beauty, and sustainability. These working principles can each have different degrees of implementation (depending on which aspect is the main focus of assessment, similar to the NEB Compass). The three levels of attention are as follows: (i) “Methodological approach—how the safety project or intervention is conceived and framed; (ii) “Users’ engagement—how stakeholders are involved and at what stage their input is incorporated; (iii) “Physical interventions—considerations regarding urban furniture, spatial configuration, and other physical measures for safe places.
• Ambitions: Each level of attention is broken down into clusters of transversal ‘ambitions’, meaning specific goal/s to be achieved. These ambitions are drawn from EU priorities and recommendations identified in the relevant policy documents and literature on security-by-design [4,5,10,13]. For example, under the first level (Methodological approach), one ambition is “Avoid oversensitivity to risk,” reflecting the advice that security measures should be proportionate and not lead to fortress-like designs.
• Recommendations: Each ambition is associated with a set of actionable recommendations or tips, which operationalize the EU recommendations and the ambitions of the methodology. Like the ambitions, the recommendations were informed by relevant documents, reports, and studies on the topic. For instance, corresponding to the ambition of avoiding oversensitivity to risk, a recommendation is to “Ensure proportionality between measures and potential risks” and to “Maintain balance between protective measures and the open nature of public areas.”
• Guiding questions: For each recommendation (and thus each ambition and level of attention), the Atlas provides guiding questions to clarify how to apply that recommendation. These questions are meant to probe aspects of the public space design, especially those related to measuring its attractiveness or relevance. For example, linked to the recommendation on proportional measures, a guiding question asks the following: “Does the design promote natural surveillance, allowing people to clearly observe the space and each other?” These questions help practitioners reflect on qualitative and quantitative dimensions of design choices.
• Insights from case studies: A curated selection of case studies (considered best practices in achieving the ambitions) complements the Atlas content. These examples form a portfolio of projects, initiatives, and experiences—drawn from a wide variety of European (and some non-European) contexts, covering different urban configurations and types of spaces—illustrating the tool’s versatility. The case examples serve as inspiration and provide “lessons learned” aligned with the ambitions (The Barcelona and Copenhagen cases discussed in Section 4 are part of this portfolio). Notably, the inclusion of diverse contexts helps users see how the same principles can manifest in different forms, bridging cultural and climatic differences.
• Theoretical References: The bottom row of the canvas lists key documents, academic papers, policies, regulations, etc., which form the scientific and policy basis of the Atlas. These references show the provenance of each ambition and recommendation, linking the assessment tool back to the broader ecosystem of European public-space safety discourse (including NEB and security policy documents).

In the canvas, the layers covering levels of attention, ambitions, recommendations, and guiding questions are directly linked in a hierarchical way (each level generates ambitions; each ambition has recommendations; and each recommendation has guiding questions). Meanwhile, the insights from case studies and theoretical reference layers run across all these sections, providing supporting examples and evidence at every level. To clarify how the contents are connected, here are some simplified excerpts: Under the first level of attention (Methodological approach), the Atlas includes an ambition: “Avoid oversensitivity to risk.” This corresponds to recommendations like “Ensure proportionality between measures and potential risks” and “Ensure balance between safety/protection and openness of public areas,” and is supported by a guiding question: “Does the design promote natural surveillance, allowing people to observe the space and have a clear perception of it?”. Under the second level (Users’ engagement), one ambition is “Consider security measures from the early design stage,” with recommendations such as “Avoid exclusively barrier solutions” and “Couple security needs with an integrated vision of ‘beautiful, sustainable, inclusive’ public spaces (in line with NEB principles),” supported by a guiding question: “Have the security needs and expectations of the public space’s users been considered and incorporated early in the design process?”. For the third level (Physical interventions), an example ambition is “Integrate existing policies,” with a recommendation to “Test/apply existing policies on accessibility and inclusion (e.g., design-for-all principles) as part of preventive design for safe spaces,” and a guiding question: “Are safety and security measures designed in compliance with inclusive design standards?”.

5.4. How to Use the Atlas

As mentioned, the Atlas is intended as a methodological tool to support the assessment of public space projects from a security-by-design perspective. In practical terms, the framework is provided as a printable canvas (A3 format), and the accompanying portfolio of design examples is compiled as an A4 booklet. For each example case study, the booklet provides a brief description, notes on why it is considered a good practice in the SAFE-CITIES context (i.e., which ambitions it illustrates), and references for further reading.

Starting from a given project proposal (on paper) or an already implemented intervention, users of the Atlas can choose to evaluate it against all three levels of attention or focus on specific sections of the canvas, depending on which factors are more relevant or the purpose of the assessment. In a workshop setting, the canvas can be printed and used as a board for placing sticky notes, allowing participants to add comments and annotations in each section. The tool can also serve as a reference grid to structure feedback in a technical report or to develop local guidelines by extracting the relevant recommendations. The case study booklet serves as a parallel resource during such sessions: depending on the type of project or space under evaluation, the booklet can provide concrete examples of integrated solutions corresponding to the Atlas’s levels of attention and ambitions, helping users envision how abstract principles translate into design outcomes.

Additionally, the Atlas can support educational activities and professional training. By using the tool, public administrators, urban designers, and students can practice how to integrate participatory methods and multi-dimensional evaluation strategies for safer, more inclusive public spaces. It effectively prompts users to consider security alongside other values (like sustainability and social inclusion) in a structured way, thereby raising awareness and building capacity on security-by-design approaches.

6. Results and Discussion

This section discusses the main results arising from the conception of the SAFE-CITIES Atlas, a design-guiding framework that integrates security-by-design, NEB values, and adaptive planning ideas to embed safety in public spaces while keeping them accessible and vibrant.

Drawing methodological inspiration from the NEB Compass, the Atlas translates high-level EU policy goals into a flexible tool for stakeholders involved in planning and design processes. The included case studies demonstrate how co-designed, context-sensitive solutions can ensure safety without compromising the open nature of urban spaces. The Atlas encourages a shift in design approaches by emphasizing early-stage integration of security measures, alignment with sustainability and aesthetic goals, and participatory processes. These elements are crucial to enhancing the sense of ownership and inclusiveness in public spaces, while reducing over-reliance on surveillance technologies or after-the-fact security add-ons [41]. The Atlas’s approach to public space security aligns with the European institutional policy papers and thematic studies (including security-by-design and CPTED), as discussed in earlier sections. Unlike previous security assessment methods or checklists, the Atlas provides a unified platform that explicitly merges safety design considerations with broader urban quality objectives, thereby filling a gap in available tools for early-stage integration of security into urban design practice. However, as a research outcome, it has thus far been tested only at a theoretical level and has not yet been formally applied in real-world projects. This reflects a broader difficulty in scaling such integrated approaches and embedding them into formal planning instruments, regulations, or procurement frameworks [42]. Furthermore, the current study did not involve new empirical data collection or long-term post-occupancy evaluation; instead, it focused on conceptual development and synthesis of best practices. The case study analyzes illustrate design interventions without tracking their long-term impacts (beyond initial implementation): an aspect that, even if in line with the research overall scope, is functional to the Atlas implementation, we can recognize as a limitation to be addressed in future investigations.

In terms of potential impact, the Atlas offers a multi-dimensional foundation for assessing and guiding urban interventions through a security-by-design lens. Although not yet tested in operational planning, it outlines measurable indicators that could be used in future implementations to evaluate effectiveness. These include:

• Spatial accessibility: improvements in pedestrian flows, barrier-free routes, and inclusive use of public space [43];
• Perceived safety: changes in user satisfaction and reported feelings of safety before and after intervention [15];
• Stakeholder engagement: the degree of participation across planning phases, from public consultation to co-design and co-management [44];
• Integration with local regulations: alignment of the project with existing planning tools, safety codes, and heritage preservation requirements [45];
• Reduction in over-reliance on intrusive surveillance: substitution of purely technological control measures with spatial strategies, such as natural surveillance and territoriality, that achieve security objectives in a less invasive manner [46];
• Social activation: increase in community-led events and informal uses of the space, indicating a higher level of comfort and appropriation by users [47].

Once implemented in pilot projects, these indicators could provide evidence of the Atlas’s operational value. They would also support comparative evaluations across different urban contexts and help mainstream a widespread culture of proactive urban safety. Additionally, we acknowledge that integrating socio-psychological perspectives could enrich future applications of the Atlas. For example, a critical review and additional studies on maintenance strategies addressing the “broken windows” effect (ensuring spaces are well-kept to boost perceived safety) or analyses of community social networks (to understand how design fosters social cohesion) could complement the Atlas’s primarily design-focused criteria.

A first step toward realizing the Atlas’s impact is raising awareness and building capacity among urban stakeholders. In line with this objective, the SAFE-CITIES project has developed a free training module, available on its e-learning platform, to disseminate the Atlas’s methodological principles and potential applications [48]. Although the Atlas has not yet been applied to real-life interventions, its coherent conceptual structure and flexibility make it a strong candidate for future pilot projects. Such applications—if supported by the appropriate institutional and regulatory frameworks—would enable empirical validation and contribute to integrating security-by-design more deeply into everyday planning and design practices.

7. Conclusions and Perspectives

Designing the public space of contemporary cities requires a change in perspective to meet the growing demand for both safety and social responsibility. An integrated approach is necessary—one in which security measures are calibrated to the level of risk and combined with physical and functional interventions following environmental prevention strategies. This approach should become standard practice in design, yet it often struggles to see full implementation. In many local or small-scale projects, there remains a tendency to introduce security measures as add-ons at a later stage of design, rather than adjusting the spatial design itself. The failure to truly integrate safety measures into a specific urban context can compromise the perception, livability, and public character of those spaces.

Urban and architectural design, in close alignment with public policies, can contribute to the social prevention of risks and unsafe situations by redesigning cities and public spaces on principles of justice, cohesion, functionality, beauty, and sustainability. Every intervention should be seen as an opportunity for improvement and regeneration that can positively influence surrounding areas.

In this direction, some sound practices include the following: avoiding exaggerated perception of risk, ensuring a balance between protective measures and the open, public nature of spaces, and creating conditions that facilitate natural surveillance; considering security needs from the earliest design stages, avoiding an exclusive reliance on barriers or cameras and instead integrating security devices into the urban landscape; and applying all relevant regulations while also heeding additional standards (for instance, accessibility or heritage guidelines). Regarding the physical configuration of spaces, an open-minded approach should address multiple dimensions: combining protection systems with area redesign, taking into account the architectural and urban context, the social and symbolic value of the place, and the mix of temporary/permanent and formal/informal activities that occur there. Standard street furniture and protective systems can be complemented by other “environmental” solutions such as natural surveillance (through layout and lighting), controlled access strategies, technology where appropriate, or site-specific installations, including public art. Finally, linking the insertion of physical measures (mechanical surveillance, barriers) with broader urban design principles can yield co-benefits like expanding protected pedestrian areas and improving accessibility by clearly signaling entry points and routes—solutions that can be tested with temporary interventions (as shown by Barcelona’s experience).

To assess how such practices and recommendations are applied in public-space projects, a methodological research tool like the ‘SAFE-CITIES Atlas 4 Safe Public Spaces Design’ guiding framework can be a valuable support. Notably, the SAFE-CITIES Atlas differs from prior frameworks by uniting security considerations with broader urban design values (accessibility, aesthetics, inclusivity) in a single tool, thus offering an original and more holistic approach. The SAFE-CITIES project offers a concrete contribution to the European discourse on sustainable security by demonstrating how design can act as a proactive strategy for urban resilience. Future efforts will focus on promoting the Atlas as a practical tool for planners and policymakers across different European contexts.

In conclusion, adopting an integrated security-by-design approach for urban spaces—one that accounts for complex factors like risk levels, social relationships, stakeholder interests, and community needs—creates opportunities to align safety with sustainability and social value in public-space planning. It turns the need for protective measures and maintaining public functions into opportunities for public-space redevelopment, underscoring their value as a common good for all. Nevertheless, we must remain mindful of potential drawbacks: over-securitized designs (e.g., excessive surveillance) might raise privacy concerns or inadvertently exclude certain groups, and practical constraints such as limited budgets or resistance from developers can hinder the implementation of comprehensive security solutions. Progress in this field is still needed, and future steps should aim to mainstream these practices through regulatory frameworks, partnerships, capacity building, testing, and the dissemination of enabling tools (like the SAFE-CITIES Atlas). By doing so, we can design—and enjoy—urban environments that are more resilient, inclusive, and secure.