Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

Urban crime and violence: Conditions and trends
81
Box 3.6 Examples of employment disruptions by industry due to the 9/11 attack, New York City, US
The financial services industry appears to have been the most
directly affected sector by far. In New York City, the number of
jobs in the securities industry fell by 12,000, or 7 per cent, in
October 2001, and by an additional 6000 from October 2001 to
June 2002. In addition, the banking industry saw a net job loss of
8000, or 8 per cent, in October and lost another 1000 jobs
through June 2002. Net job losses in these key financial industries
totalled 20,000 in October and another 7000 through June 2002.
The restaurant industry also sustained steep job losses
immediately following the attack. For the city overall, the number
of jobs at bars and restaurants – which was imperceptibly affected
at the national level – fell by an estimated 9000 (6 per cent) in
October, but rebounded fully by December and held steady up to
June 2002. However, these are net changes and do not capture the
geographical distribution of employment in this industry. Thus, it is
not clear if restaurant employment in the areas closest to the
World Trade Center – the Financial District, Tribeca and
Chinatown – has fully rebounded to pre-attack levels.
The hotel industry lost an estimated 6000 jobs, or 15
per cent, city-wide between September 2001 and March 2002.
This reflected the drop-off in tourism, although 5000 of those jobs
were lost in October alone.
The steep decline in the number of people travelling also
led to job losses in areas away from the World Trade Center site
– in particular, at John F. Kennedy International Airport and
LaGuardia Airport, both in the borough of Queens. The number
of jobs in the city’s air transportation industry fell by about
11,000, or 20 per cent. Almost all of this decline occurred in
October and November 2001.
Although other industries, such as business services,
apparel manufacturing, printing and publishing, were also presumably
affected, largely because of their strong concentration in
Lower Manhattan, there is no indication of any significant shift in
employment trends following 11 September. However, it should be
noted that many business owners and workers who did not lose
their jobs evidently suffered income losses because of the disruptions
in the weeks and months immediately following the attack.
This is of particular concern in the restaurant and apparel industries,
where workers’ pay depends on business volume.
Source: Bram et al, 2002, p8
employees, and increasing restrictions on their
movements on the ramps, in baggage areas and in the
terminals.
• Purchasing, by airlines, of more powerful scanners that
can detect explosives in baggage.
• Deployment of armed, plain clothes, Sky Marshals
(security guards) on some domestic and international
flights.
• Increased surveillance of baggage and baggage handlers
at airports.
Increased security measures that have been undertaken with
respect to seaports, bus stations and train stations are:
• Installation of more surveillance cameras to monitor
daily activities.
• Deployment of more armed security guards (with guns,
tear gas, pepper spray and clubs).
• Establishment of more checkpoints to scan and examine
people and baggage.
Other impacts of urban terrorism include the development
of an atmosphere of fear, which might be exacerbated by
terror alert levels adopted in affected countries; posttraumatic
stress disorder and increased depression
experienced by victims of terrorist attacks; and increased
spending on public security, especially in terms of surveillance,
emergency planning and training of operatives in
counter-terrorism. In the case of cities in developing
countries, such increased spending diverts scarce resources
away from productive investment in areas designed to
promote growth, poverty eradication and sustainable urban
development.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Although crime and violence are found in virtually all cities
across all global regions, most places are safe and most
citizens are neither perpetrators nor victims of crime and
violence. Crime, and especially street crimes such as robbery
and assaults, tends to be concentrated in certain city areas
and neighbourhoods, which are often the ‘worst’ urban
locations in terms of property value and environmental risks
from disasters and hazards. Nevertheless, even though localized,
crime, violence and the fear of crime remain
fundamental threats to urban safety and security and to the
sustainability of urban places. They are predictable and
especially problematic challenges to vulnerable populations
– the poor, young males, minorities, women and children –
in distressed neighbourhoods, generally, and in developing
and transitional countries of Latin America and Africa, where
crime rates have grown dramatically within burgeoning
urban centres. In this context, crime and violence rates are
associated with the pace of urbanization and the size of
urban populations, although these are variable predictors
relative to changes in crime and violence, particularly when
specific types of crimes are taken into account.
Nevertheless, increasing urbanization in regions of the world
that are least able to cope with existing problems portends
the need for new or reinvigorated policy and programme
directions to cope with crime and violence.
To be effective, these policies and programmes will
need to recognize the dimensions of crime and violence at
all levels and to take into account the complex risk factors
that underlie them, as discussed above. Among responses
that are possible in framing strategies are those aimed at
better urban planning, design and governance, which incor-