Security Analysis in UBC, Vancouver
VIEWSHED ANALYSIS RESULTS
​
The view shed analysis result map displays 2 different zones, the green patches refer to places on main roads where emergency poles and visible while pink patches shoes invisibility of these.
This map reflect the uneveness of diversity on terms of key locations at intersection of roads, leaving much pathways and outer core campus to be isolated from emergency poles.
The second viewshed anylisis looks at 2 additional factors, sensitive areas (the two first year residences, Totem Park and Place Vanier, Geography and Forestry and NW Drive and Agronomy road) and past assaults. This map is very informative on data provided from the first viewshed analysis in terms of the locations of emergency poles might not be good assumptions based on "feelings" of people and actual assaults. Indeed we see that the sensitive areas are all outside of the green zones and quite considerably, maybe with only exception of the northern part of the NW Drive.
Furthermore, the past assaults since last April, all 6 of them have been recorded in area where access or visibility was not promising.
The viewshed analyses although providing uneven distribution of emergency phones, is valuable in terms of where the university should implement new ones to increase visibility all around, especially in "sensible areas" where people most feel unsecured.
Results of Viewshed Analysis, Kernel Diversity Evaluation, Least Cost Paths and Potentials sites to be Improved at UBC
KERNEL DENSITY EVALUATION RESUTLS
​
This Kernel density evaluation shows similar patterns as the viewshed analysis. Both tend to have sensible areas in their lowest densities of emergency poles in the case of viewshed and streelights in this case.
The first map of Kernel Density serves as a good basis for evaluating the differences between the two.
A range from 0 to 0.005, as the lowered valued areas represent much dispersed with less density in streetlights, while higher values aim to point at clusters in high density of streetlights. The second map (reference to sensitive areas) displays great information to be developed later on about detrimental effects that poor densities of streetlights have on recurring events in specific locations. In terms of sensible areas and past assaults, although streetlights are more present overally, the specific locations still register as being at the lowest densities of streetlights. This is especially true in the case of the Totem Park and Place Vanier, which are both in "holes" of lights and "holes" of emergency poles.
Just like in Viewshed analysis, this map provides solid ground vizualition of faulty lights, leading to unsecurities and sometimes, as seen due to increases recently, even worse consequences.
LEAST COST PATHS
​
The 5 different maps all show similar trends in the way people should plan their itineraries. Those do not involve mnuch change from the usual most principal ways that students opt for. The results of this study are quite disappointing as the least cost paths all show quite linear structure towards their destination. This is probably due to a range in friction costs that was not large enough. This could also be due to too many factors that were accounted for in the equation.
Despite all this, those 5 maps all display and reestate an already well known fact, that is that small streets should be avoided after certain hours and rather switched to a bigger road. This for reasons such as the two spefic factors cited in the viewshed analysis and the Kerner density evaluatation.
Furthermore, the very small variations from a straight line as path go from source to destination may also be due to a lacking amount of beneficial factors of security (such as lights, emergency poles, benches, bars or noisy areas) which hinders the capability of outreaching the growing areas of security, thus leading to small differences in the paths observed and a Euclidean path. I say "growing areas" due to the constant construction zones that fill the UBC Campus and which are considered by its students to be one of the most 'fearful' areas. In this instance I am not urging UBC to end it's construction, this would be ridiculous, I am rather proposing a final map showing where the university could benefit implementing such security rich factors, especially in areas that lack.
POTENTIAL SITES TO BE IMPROVED​ RESULTS
The last map of this projects hopes to disguise areas in critical need of improval from both the streetlights allocation and emergency poles. As light is the number one beneficiator of secure environment, it is very important to acknowledge, but more important to act upon.
In this final map, which may look complicated at first, but bear with me. The really light pink zones have been omitted from the legend as they are buildings and such obviously are not providers of light at all times. Having said that, in a higher density of very light pink buildings I would suggest implementing a light system amongst one of them from which students/professors/ staff could all benefit from.
The very blue areas are where UBC is doing its best, those are both lit and have visibility on blue poles. Nothing of major importance would have to be introduced in this instance. However, this blue area is also the smallest and only happest at higher and bigger streets, indicating uneveness in seurity's applications again.
The darker pink zones refer to lit places, yet no visibility on emergency poles. Those locations would not be of primary concern as the top one security inducer is present.
On the other hand, the darker blue areas are unli but have visibility on the emergency poles, which could contradict the advanatge. Would someone still have full visibility of that pole in the dark?
And finally, the worst zones of the campus of UBC, those that I would suggest the university to work and implement security factors are are the really red patches, which occupy most of the land