A Comparison of the Impact of Protective and Preservative Video Surveillance on Urban Territoriality

The case of Switzerland

Bibliographic Data

ID8087014
AuthorsFrancisco Klauser
Year2002
Volume2
Issue2/3
Publication date2002-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSurveillance & Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1477-7487 • E-ISSN: 1477-7487
PublisherSurveillance Studies Network (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.24908/ss.v2i2/3.3371
OpenAlexW2169191209
LanguageEN
Citations received7
References cited4

This paper focuses on a comparison between two forms of video-surveillance and their consequences for the territoriality of public space users: the preservative, which aims to preserve public order and to prevent 'anti-social' behaviour; and the protective, which protect specific risk-points like buildings or objects. The fundamental difference between preservative and protective surveillance is linked to the spatial logic of its functioning, that can be deduced both from the position of the cameras and the general orientation of its view. Following Lefebvre and Raffestin, it argues that these socio-spatial relationships of social players may be considered as an inherent part of public space. In consequence, their transformation directly affects the qualities of public space. These theoretical explored are illustrated with a cartographical study of the cameras within the city centre of Geneva and a study of public sensitivity and perception of video surveillance in the Swiss city of Olten

Architectural engineering · Business · Geography · Perception · Political science · Position (finance · Public space · Sociology · Territoriality · Transformation (genetics · Computer Science · Ecology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies · Engineering · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Psychology · Public Spaces through Art · Communication

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access