Residents, policymakers and academics are working together to build a safer Rotterdam: can AI act as a bridge between residents and policymakers?

“Law enforcement is not a one-size-fits-all solution for a safe city”

In the public and political debate on public safety, the emphasis is often placed on law enforcement and repressive measures, such as a heavy police presence on the streets, smart camera systems, predictive policing and zero-tolerance policies. “This is certainly not just the case in Rotterdam, we see it on a national level. That message is tempting because it’s so incredibly simple. A direct, seemingly easy solution to countless safety problems: a sort of universal quick fix that can be applied anywhere,” says Storbeck.

But what if enforcement and repression are not the (only) path to a safer society? Storbeck explains: “In contrast there is a more holistic approach to safety, which looks at the underlying causes of problems rather than merely treating the symptoms. From this perspective, known in criminology as ‘positive safety’, safety is not just about reducing crime or nuisance, but about care, wellbeing, inclusion, connectedness, social cohesion and working with stakeholders to create conditions in which problems are less likely to arise in the first place.”

How do you create the right conditions for a safe neighbourhood?

By investing in social connection, a strong community and opportunities for residents. This approach therefore focuses not only on eliminating problems, but also on strengthening the factors that contribute to a resilient neighbourhood. “During a seminar for policy officers from the Safety Directorate in December 2025, we saw a great deal of enthusiasm and interest in the positive safety approach. It’s not just about only focusing on what’s going wrong, but also investing in what can flourish. Watering more, rather than just pruning,” said Storbeck.

Positive safety. A great approach, but how do we actually identify the factors that contribute to a safe and resilient neighbourhood?

This has been happening for years through public participation, such as public consultation evenings and letters. However, these methods are not equally accessible to everyone. Storbeck explains: “Our research shows that, for effective public participation in decisions about your living environment, you also need a certain level of literacy that aligns with the language, communication style and working methods of policymakers. Citizens who do not master this language or literacy may therefore struggle to convey their ideas convincingly, even when these ideas are substantively valuable.”

AI as a bridge between citizens and policy

In this light, the researchers saw AI as an interesting tool for lowering the barrier to participation and bridging the gap between citizens and policy. As Storbeck explains, “Although you wouldn’t readily write in a letter to the local council, ‘I want a meadow with horses because it makes me feel good.’ An AI visualisation can capture that image beautifully, and in this way AI can help citizens convey their ideas in a different way, without them having to master the language of policy or the communication skills of professionals. This form of expression proved less daunting for participants than personally defending an idea during a public consultation evening or in a formal letter.”

The neighbourhood vegetable garden as a meeting place

In practice, this method of visualisation actually proved to provide room for new ideas. It highlighted concrete examples and wishes from the residents of the Lombardijen, as well as their critical and practical considerations regarding safety in the neighbourhood. “Although policymakers naturally often think about neighbourhood development at a more abstract level, the visualisations also highlighted striking similarities. One example of this was the neighbourhood vegetable garden. For residents, this space is not just about growing vegetables, but also about ownership, pride, self-reliance and community. It also fitted in with the neighbourhood’s identity, as the local council confirmed. They saw such a garden as a meeting place that encourages people to talk to one another more and look out for one another. This fosters social control, but above all a community in which people look out for one another, thereby creating greater social cohesion,” according to Storbeck.

Rotterdam’s greening initiative must be not only green but also social

The research reveals a pattern: litter undermines the sense of safety, whilst green spaces reinforce it. Storbeck explains: “In Lombardijen, residents feel that their neighbourhood receives less attention than the city centre when it comes to keeping the area clean. Their call is clear: a fairer cleaning policy, one that benefits not only tourist hotspots and affluent neighbourhoods, but also working-class neighbourhoods.”

Aa clean street has a contagious effect. People are more likely to keep a tidy environment clean than a littered one. Alongside more intensive municipal efforts, it is therefore also essential to focus on resident involvement, according to Storbeck. “People who notice that their neighbourhood is valued and visibly maintained are more likely to feel a sense of responsibility. Picking up litter together with neighbours is a direct example of this.”

A great deal is already happening in the area of greening. Rotterdam is investing in major urban projects such as Hofbogenpark, Rijnhavenpark and Hofplein. Storbeck emphasises: “It is important, however, that greening is not merely used as a means of increasing property values, but is something that is reflected throughout the city. A pleasant and clean living environment in the city is becoming increasingly important. But above all, greening must create meeting places: vegetable gardens and urban farms where people can learn about vegetables and ecology, and get their hands dirty. Such places are not only green, but above all social.”

Delivering rather than promising

According to the researchers, AI can, above all, act as a bridge between residents and policymakers because it levels the playing field. “When residents and policymakers work together using an AI tool, something playful and creative emerges. You’re visualising, philosophising and discussing together. There’s room for humour and experimentation.”

Ultimately, however, the key lies in what happens next. “You often hear that all sorts of public consultation processes have taken place, but residents still think: "We can all come up with and visualise ideas, but in the end it just ends up in a desk drawer again.’” That is why Storbeck argues that it is particularly important not to promise too much, but rather to deliver more: first realise concrete solutions and then look further towards bigger visions. “It doesn’t always have to be expensive or on a grand scale. It doesn’t have to be a massive sky bridge to create more connections between isolated neighbourhoods. Sometimes it simply starts with looking after plants better, keeping streets clean, setting up a vegetable garden and giving residents a real say in it.”

What does this mean for Rotterdam?

The researchers are calling for a shift in urban management. Litter should be seen as a call for care rather than an enforcement issue. Storbeck concludes with clear advice for Rotterdam: “Focus on keeping the city clean. It is simply unacceptable that the Netherlands, as one of the richest countries in the world, cannot solve the problem of dirty urban environments. We find innovative solutions to many problems, but this one often lags behind. It is bad for both people and animals, so clean up the city. Once the basics are in place, the ball will start rolling and more space for nature and safety will naturally emerge.”