Suicide among younger people is often so
spontaneous that it can be prevented if they do not encounter a
potentially dangerous place outdoors. Getting the form of the
built environment correct is therefore a very important factor
in stopping suicide among young people. This is the finding of
Charlotta Thodelius, a researcher at Chalmers University of
Technology, Sweden.
Combining sociology and criminology with architecture in her
doctoral thesis, Charlotta Thodelius’ dissertation centres on
injuries among young people up to 19 years old, and how the
built environment influences these injuries. It consists of
three parts: accidents in the home environment, the risk of
violence at school, and the importance of location in suicidal
situations.
Globally, suicide is the second most common cause of death among
young people. Their suicide often differs radically from adults
when it comes to the level of planning and conviction.
“I have observed that younger people commit a different type of
suicide from adults,” says Charlotta Thodelius. “They are
spontaneous and act very impulsively. They might not want to
actually die, they just want something to stop. It might be
something that has been going on for a while, but it can also be
something that, as adults, we might find quite trivial –
breaking up with a partner, fighting with parents, doing badly
in a test, or being gossiped about.”
She continues, “If you compare with suicide among adults, that
is usually more well-planned. Bills are paid, letters are sent,
and a place is chosen where they won’t be easily found
beforehand – out in the woods, or in a hotel room.”
She believes that we should first understand suicidal impulses
among the young as their way of dealing with a difficult
situation. In this case, the deciding factor could simply be if
they have easy access to a deadly place or not. They seek out
desolate, but easily accessible places which they know well and
are close to where they spend most of their time.
If there are obstacles to taking their own life in these places,
there is a high chance that they have no plan B and will abandon
the attempt. After the acute stage of the crisis passes, they
may not make another attempt to commit suicide. Earlier research,
mainly in the USA, has already demonstrated that when you set up
obstacles at ‘hotspots’, the total number of suicides goes down
and there is no corresponding increase in other places instead.
“There are therefore good reasons to modify the built
environment around known hotspots and try to avoid creating new
ones in city development,” says Charlotta Thodelius. “This
requires input from engineers, city planners and architects.”
One difficulty is that no one really has authority over the
question. This hinders collaboration between different actors,
from civil engineers to emergency personnel, psychiatrists and
local authorities.
“These groups have to speak to one another, and really analyse
each hotspot individually to be able to take effective measures.
Standard solutions, for example glass barriers on train
platforms which have been installed on certain train tracks in
Japan, work poorly. There are good local examples where the
collaboration required has been achieved, but it is not done
systematically throughout society.”
Furthermore, it is important that preventative measures do not
disturb the original and everyday function of a place, or their
pleasant atmosphere. Attractive places with many visitors rarely
become hotspots. In city planning, it is necessary to avoid
creating new dangerous places in desolate ‘no-man’s-land’ areas
where city builders don’t really cooperate; environments where
it’s not natural for people to be.
“The best thing is to understand and adopt this perspective as
early as the planning stage for new buildings and city areas,”
says Charlotta Thodelius. Adjustments made after construction
are more difficult, but even existing hotspots can usually be
made safer while still maintaining a pleasant atmosphere and
their functionality.
She has seen many examples, both good and bad.
“A bad example would be a bridge with unattractive suicide nets
set up. This can easily stigmatise a place, and make the general
public avoid it. A better example is a bridge, with a fence
covered in plants and flowers. This doesn’t affect a place in
the same way – instead of being perceived as a suicide
prevention measure, it can rather be seen as something to simply
make the place nicer.”
More about the research
Charlotta Thodelius presented her doctoral dissertation
Rethinking Injury Events. Explorations in Spatial Aspects and
Situational Prevention Strategies on November 23, 2018. She
previously completed a Bachelor’s in sociology and a Master’s in
criminology.
|
|
|
Charlotta Thodelius |
The part of the study looking at violence in school shows that a
key factor in reducing risks is getting the balance right
between supervision and freedom in ‘unowned’ places, such as
corridors, shelters and bathrooms, the places where most violent
events occur. Charlotta Thodelius believes that many schools
have too much separation of the premises for teachers and
students, which results in too little natural contact between
adults and young people.
The part of the study on accidents in housing environments shows
that it is mainly stairwells in multi-occupant buildings and
outdoor areas near residential buildings that would benefit from
preventative work, focusing on design issues to reduce injury
events.
The doctoral dissertation from Chalmers Department for
Architecture and Civil Engineering is part of a
multidisciplinary research project on injury events in home and
living environments.