English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

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