I was doing research for on funding for projects through the World Bank pertaining to environmental projects. Each project was subject to a list of requirements proving that it was environmentally friendly before funding was approved. If it wasn't, then the money for the project was denied.
This same approach could be taken in terms of public buildings, parks, etc. Each urban city should have their own criteria that must be met before that project is deemed "friendly" to the safety of women. If it does not meet the safety requirements then funding for that particular projects should be denied. I've done some research and this idea is very similar to Safety Audits that many urban cities do. It would just take the idea of a safety audit one step futher by actually having a consequence for cities or buildings that do not meet safety requirements. Examples of such criteria could be:
- Lighting: are lights working? Evenly distributed? Do they light pedestrian ways? How long do repairs take? Mark on maps the lights that are not working
- Signage (maps, directions, etc.)
- If there are footpaths, are they wide enough? Are there obstructions or large cracks?
- Access to any help in emergency. Are there phones? Are there a lot of people around?
- Do surrounding buildings provide informal surveillance (shops or restaurants with large windows, housing or offices with balconies)?
- Are there any entrapment areas such as recessed doorways or all
- Are there any demolished or unfinished buildings which could be
- Any visible policing?
Limitations: This would be more preventative and preemptive action and can only apply to city projects that are still seeking funding/ in the works. It does not address the safety of urban areas that are already existing.