Segment
|
Justifications
|
|
Segment “1” is made up of Luiz Brugin Street and Saul Elkind Avenue and this route taken by only one interviewee. Although the street is further away from the routes taken, the choice is due to the existing signage for pedestrians to cross safely. |
|
Segment “2” is represented by Arara-Azul Street, which was chosen due to the upkeep of the space: the cleanliness of the street indicates that residents take care of their sidewalks. In addition, there are no obstructions along the street and walking is easy. Space upkeep is studied by Wilson and Kelling (1982)WILSON, J. Q.; KELLING, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic. EUA, v. 249, n. 3, pp. 29-38. Disponível em: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/. Acesso em: 18 maio 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...
in which they point out that a lack of care increases the perception of insecurity, and when there is maintenance, it subsequently promotes the perception of safety. Another consideration for choosing the segment was the existence of shops, schools and supermarkets. According to the interviewee: “the supermarket parking lot is at the end of the street and if something happens, I can call someone to help me”. It was noticed that the existence of non-residential uses is related to the frequency of people walking about. Finally, traffic safety was mentioned once again when the interviewee saw the street as quiet and easy for safe crossing. |
|
Segment “3” is made up of Luiz Brugin Street and Irene Carrara Nunes Street. The choice for this section was related to physical and social structures. The segment is made up of businesses such as a pizzeria and the Maria Cecília Basic Health Unit (UBS) and the very presence of residents enables the circulation of people which the interviewees explained as, “even though it is a more residential street, I always see people in their garages or sweeping the sidewalks.” Another characteristic for choosing the street was the spatial characteristics, such as the width of the road, seen as more inviting in relation to the others. |
|
Segment “4” is defined only by a section of Saul Elkind Avenue and taken by all interviewees who reported such choice because of: “the number of people walking around due to the existence of several businesses”. However, problems with the sidewalks bothered those interviewed and subsequently caused some to walk along the bike path located in the central median of the avenue. One of the problems was the width of the sidewalks which are narrow, full of people, bus stops, signs, lamp posts, etc., and according to one interviewee, it’s easy to be a target for muggers. The frequency of people circulating is beneficial because they are seen, however in some cases, it can contribute to the negative perception of being a victim. Finally, because the cycle path has very few trees, one of the interviewees reported that, on cloudy days, she prefers to walk along the cycle path, as there are shops on the avenue that are drug hotspots. |
|
Segment “5” is made up of Antônio Lopes Sevilha Street, and its main characteristic for choosing it was the “existence of shops close to the sidewalk, which are open until 7 pm”. According to Jacobs (1958)JACOBS, J. (1958). Morte e vida de grandes cidades. EUA, Random House., establishments are excellent safety guards, they take care of the sidewalks and promote public order because they are concerned about the safety of their customers. Another factor in choosing this segment of road, according to one interviewee, is “I always see residents in their homes or sweeping the sidewalks, talking, buses drive by and the flow of cars is greater”. The interviewee added that, if there are no people walking around or residents nearby, it is not a good place to walk because “no one would help you if you needed to ask for help”. Another characteristic cited was the perception of familiarity. One woman responded that “she feels that the environment is more familiar and welcoming when the streets are busy”. Ferraro (1995)FERRARO, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: interpreting victimization risk. EUA, Suny Press. explains that the familiarity of the route is supported by activities that are symbolically significant for individuals and promote sociability. |
|
Segment “6” is determined by Izaura Amaral Alves Street and chosen by the residents because it is “a route closer to the areas with businesses”, as well as, “being the route with greater movement of people”. The women interviewed chose the street because it is located close to commercial streets, as well as its proximity to the route of their destination. This question shows that the route is also taken by choosing streets closer to their destination, in other words, how quickly they can reach it. |
|
Segment “7” is defined by Antônio Lopes Sevilha Street and Maria Sinopoli Francovig Street, which were chosen for having a number of residences because they promote the “eyes on the street”, by Jane Jacobs (1958)JACOBS, J. (1958). Morte e vida de grandes cidades. EUA, Random House.. The segment was chosen because residents can see from their homes if something happens. |
|
The last segment “8” is classified by Saul Elkind Avenue and Rudolf Keilhold Street. The interviewed woman continued her commute along the avenue because “I ended up creating a friendship with a shopkeeper on the corner of Rudolf Keilhold Street and I feel safe when going that way”. The theory of trust is mentioned again, and characterized by Jacobs (1958)JACOBS, J. (1958). Morte e vida de grandes cidades. EUA, Random House. as promoting public order through the bonds created between shopkeeper and customer. Another characteristic of the segment is the implementation of the Olympia Tormenta School, which promotes greater movement of people on the street. |