City of Edmonton Graffiti Vandalism Audit (2017)

Transcription

1 City of Edmonton Graffiti Vandalism Audit (2017) Prepared by: MGM Management April 6, 2018 FINAL REPORT

2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Executive Summary 3 Table ES-1 Summary 4 Figure ES1 - Locations & Tag Summary 4 Table ES-2 Change in Tags Observed 2017 vs Introduction & Background 8 Audit Methodology 10 Results of the Edmonton Audit 11 Neighbourhood Graffiti Index & Rankings 12 Size & Descriptor of Graffiti 22 Target Properties & Categories 25 Location Intensity Rating (LIR) 29 Conclusions 31 APPENDIX A - Overview Audit Sample Locations 33 APPENDIX B - Graffiti Observation Locations 34 APPENDIX C Sample Photographs - Edmonton Graffiti Vandalism 54 1

3 Figure 1 - Locations & Tag Count Summary Figure 2 Combined Graffiti Index Results - by Neighbourhood Figure 3 - Top 10 Taggers in Figure 4 - Six Most Active Neighbourhoods Figure 5 - Sizes of Graffiti Observed in Figure 6 - Observed Graffiti is Not Artistic Figure 7 - Graffiti Tags by Property Ownership Table 1 - Neighbourhood Graffiti Index Results Table 2 - Combined Neighbourhood Graffiti Index Results Table 3 - Graffiti Occurrence by Neighbourhood Sampled 14 Table 4 - Comparison of Graffiti 2017 vs Neighbourhoods 16 Table 5 - Prominent Taggers Observed 17 Table 6 - Neighbourhood Graffiti - Most Active Taggers Table 7 - Graffiti Observed in 2017 is Mainly Small 23 Table 8 - Summary of Graffiti Vandalism Observed in Table 9 - Graffiti Categories 24 Table 10 - Graffiti Targets & Category Results 27 Acknowledgements Capital City Clean Up, Community Standards and Neighbourhoods, Citizen Services Don Belanger, Program Manager, Karey Steil, Community Relations Advisor, Graffiti Project Manager, Tiffany Sustrik, Supervisor & Mandi Friesen, Supervisor Colin Stewart, Municipal Enforcement Officer 2

4 Executive Summary The City of Edmonton engaged MGM Management, a British Columbia consulting firm, to design and conduct a graffiti vandalism audit in selected neighbourhoods within the City. The first graffiti vandalism audit occurred in November of 2010, with repeat audits in October 2011, 2012, 2013, , 2016 and This report presents the results for observations made in October 2017, during the eighth graffiti vandalism audit conducted in Edmonton. Graffiti vandalism is a public nuisance offence that causes damage to public and private property. Graffiti is both a bylaw infraction and criminal act (mischief under the Criminal Code of Canada). During each of Edmonton's graffiti audits the consultant examined graffiti vandalism in the most active graffiti neighbourhoods documented in Edmonton. Edmonton has 375 designated neighbourhoods. It would be costly and time prohibitive to audit all neighbourhoods for graffiti, therefore a sample of neighbourhoods was used for audit purposes. Graffiti auditing for 2017 was conducted in the same 20 Edmonton neighbourhoods that have been audited since These neighbourhoods represent those with generally the highest incidents of graffiti complaints from citizens. In each of the target neighbourhoods, a hot spot sample area and a random sample area were selected. Hot spot areas were those where significant reports of graffiti vandalism had been recorded in the City s data system. For each sample area, the consultant selected an area of 4 city blocks by 4 city blocks representing a size of approximately hectares. For comparison, a random area, of the same approximate size as the hot spot was selected in each of the 20 neighbourhoods being audited. These random areas were selected from areas within the neighbourhood where historically there have been fewer reports of graffiti. During the 2017 graffiti audit, the audit crew observed graffiti vandalism at 405 locations where graffiti vandalism was present, an increase of 11% over the number of locations observed in In 2016 there were 365 locations. The number of locations where graffiti was observed in 2017 increased by 26% compared to 2015 (322 locations) and by 15% compared to 2014 (352 locations). Data shows an upward trend in the number of locations where graffiti is observed since Correspondingly, in 2017 significantly more tags were observed than in 2016 or in In 2017 the audit documented 1,947 tags, compared to 1,575 tags in 2016 and 977 graffiti in This is a 23.6% increase over the previous year, and 99% higher than

5 Table ES-1 Summary Whereas the trend from 2013 to 2015 was a decrease in observed graffiti tags in the sample areas, that trend has reversed in the past two years. Figure ES1 - Locations & Tag Summary In the Downtown neighbourhood, it was noted in the 2016 audit report that the downward trend in graffiti tags had stalled. In the 2017 audit graffiti tags increased by 70 tags to 383 representing a 22% increase in this area. Significant increases in the number of tags observed were noted, comparing 2017 observations to the 2016 results. Table ES-2 describes these changes. Increases in the number of tags observed ranged from 167% in the Queen Mary Park neighbourhood to 15% in Boyle Street neighbourhood. Some neighbourhoods had lower occurrences of graffiti, ranging from a 7% decrease in Strathcona, to a 68% decrease in Beacon Heights. Of the twenty neighbourhoods audited only eight exhibited a decrease in the number of tags observed year-over-year. Noted neighbourhood changes include: Queen Alexandra, rising from 174 tags to 322 in 2017, an 85% increase Garneau, rising from 99 tags in 2016 to 190 in 2017, a 92% increase. CPR West / Strathcona Junction, rising from 105 tags in 2016 to 154 in 2017, a 47% increase. Neighbourhoods with high historical graffiti tagger activity were observed at: Downtown, a 22% increase; Boyle Street, a 15% increase; whereas Strathcona decreased by 7%. 4

6 Table ES-2 Change in Tags Observed 2017 vs Twelve of the twenty sample neighborhoods were observed to have more graffiti tags recorded compared to These 12 neighbourhoods exhibited 524 more tags than observed in The most significant increases were observed in Queen Mary Park, McCauley, Garneau, Oliver, and Queen Alexandra neighbourhoods. Queen Alexandra was recorded with the largest numerical increase in graffiti, 85% more tags, or 148 more than the previous year. Correspondingly the 8 remaining neighbourhoods had 152 fewer tags, with the net result being 372 more tags observed in 2017 compared to the previous year s audit. The Ritchie neighbourhood showed a decrease of 41%, or 77 fewer tags than in During the 2017 audit, the audit team traveled 555 kilometres within Edmonton s 20 sample neighbourhoods, on streets, in alleys and in laneways recording graffiti observations. During this audit approximately 1,000 photographs were taken recording the graffiti observed. A comprehensive database was created to archive and analyze the data collected. Paper records, electronic data records and digital photographic records were archived to preserve the data gathered. The audit methodology used by the City of Edmonton, as developed with the consultant, provides a repeatable and unbiased way of auditing neighbourhoods for graffiti vandalism. The neighbourhoods 5

7 examined in this audit can be examined in the future to determine whether the amount of graffiti vandalism is increasing or decreasing. For the 2017 graffiti vandalism audit the consultant calculated a Location Intensity Rating (LIR) to examine the amount and intensity of graffiti at each of the 405 locations. For comparison purposes these intensities (LIR) of graffiti are plotted on neighbourhood maps in Appendix B showing graffiti locations and LIRs for Consistent with observing a significant increase in graffiti tags in 2017 compared to the previous year, the graffiti index also was observed to increase in The neighbourhoods with the greatest combined intensity index increases were: McCauley with a 135% index increase, Oliver with an index increase of 90%; Queen Alexandra, with an increase of 78%; Garneau with 73% increase in its combined index. These data indicate that these neighbourhoods have significantly more graffiti vandalism occurring in them than in the previous audit in During the 2017 field work, auditors were accompanied by a City of Edmonton Municipal Enforcement Officer, from the Complaints and Investigations Section of the Community Standards and Neighbourhoods Branch. The identification of taggers has been enhanced by having city staff participating in the audit, due to their skills in reading tagger names. The number of identified (readable) taggers observed in 2017 was 505 compared to 531 taggers in The number of identifiable taggers has increased by 21% since 2015; but appears to be similar in 2017 to The number of taggers identified has been increasing in Edmonton since These observations compare to 418 identified taggers in 2015, 400 in 2014, 424 taggers in 2013, 305 graffiti taggers in 2012 and 379 in Most graffiti tags are small covering less than sq. m (2sq.ft.). In the 2017 audit the number of small tags increased to 1,597 from 1,288 in The proportion of small tags remained consistent with other audits at 82% of total tags. The graffiti observed in 2017 was predominantly marker / plain graffiti at 93.1 %; (93.7% in 2016, 94.1% in 2015 compared to 92% in 2014). This is graffiti that is textual or stylized in nature, and is not artistic in its design. The consultant notes that the proportion of total graffiti on city assets (signs, ETS, park furniture etc.) has remained the same since Graffiti on City property decreased from 17% of all tags in 2015, to 9% of all tags in 2016 and 9% in Most of the tags on city property are on garbage and recycling bins in alleys and laneways (81% of city tags (excluding ETS property) were noted on these bins). Commercial waste bins, parking lot barricades, signs and posts continue to be common targets for taggers. Retail property such as stores, and service providers are often targets for graffiti. Private residential and multi-family residential properties are often targets of graffiti vandals, especially on 6

8 fences and garages in back alleys and laneways. A continuing observation is that murals, throughout the City, were not generally defaced by graffiti tags. This reinforces previous observations that in general graffiti vandals tend to avoid tagging murals. 7

9 Introduction & Background Graffiti vandalism is a property crime that places a financial burden on public and private property owners. Graffiti vandalism defaces property, resulting in significant cleanup and prevention efforts and remediation costs in a large municipality like Edmonton. The City of Edmonton s Capital City Clean Up (CCCU) program operates an active Graffiti Management Program (GMP). The Capital City Clean Up program provides support to property owners in understanding graffiti vandalism, removing graffiti, and engages the community in sharing the responsibility for graffiti vandalism prevention and removal. Due to increased public concern and awareness, Community Standards Bylaw 14600, section 9, was amended effective April 1, 2008, requiring owners to remove graffiti vandalism from their properties upon notification. Community Standards bylaw enforcement allows for the issuing of a $250 ticket in the event of non-compliance. The City can also cause a forced cleaning to be implemented under the Municipal Government Act, with municipal assets conducting the cleanup. These costs are transferred back to the property owner by adding the cost to the tax roll for the specific property. In 2008, to increase enforcement and removal, CCCU proactively created an inventory of graffiti vandalism in the City. In this inventory, it was not possible to collect detailed information on the graffiti vandalism at each location. The inventory served as a starting point for graffiti enforcement commencing in the spring of Subsequently, a second inventory was completed by City of Edmonton graffiti removal staff from November 1, 2009 to April 1, Since 2008, information regarding graffiti has been gathered by the City through complaints and documentation from bylaw officers. This information has been entered into the City s POSSE data management system for investigation and follow-up. Staff determined that some graffiti data was inaccurate or incomplete causing difficulties in follow-up activities for bylaw officers to conduct enforcement. Data entered into the City s POSSE data management system formed the basis of designing the first graffiti audit in 2010, and was used, as the source of data, in choosing which neighbourhoods would be sampled in graffiti vandalism audits. Information assembled on taggers and locations of graffiti is shared with the Edmonton Police Service to assist police in their investigations and to improve the success of charges laid for graffiti offences. In October 2010, the City and MGM Management developed and implemented a method for auditing graffiti vandalism in selected neighbourhoods in Edmonton. Using these audit techniques, the City can compare the occurrence of graffiti offences in given neighbourhoods and has used this tool to compare graffiti vandalism intensity from one year to the next. City bylaw enforcement staff have issued clean up notices to property owners based on the information gathered from the Graffiti Vandalism Audits taking place from 2010 to This process has proven to be effective in identifying and reducing graffiti occurrences in Edmonton. 8

10 Commencing in early-october 2017, the City conducted its eighth Graffiti Vandalism Audit. The same 20 neighbourhoods, have been examined each year since By conducting graffiti audits Edmonton has developed a method for evaluating the occurrence and intensity of graffiti vandalism in selected neighbourhoods. The results provide unbiased information about the street names (tagger names) of graffiti vandals while examining the types and size of graffiti vandalism and target properties where graffiti is placed. This report describes how the 2017 graffiti audit was conducted and provides results based upon field observations. The debate on graffiti street art versus graffiti vandalism has long been a contentious issue for Edmontonians. The City of Edmonton is committed to promoting safer, cleaner communities by reducing and preventing graffiti vandalism, while at the same time recognizing the artistic and cultural value street art can add when done tastefully, and with owner permission so that it does not contravene the Community Standards bylaw. 9

11 Audit Methodology City of Edmonton staff in cooperation with MGM Management, a B.C. based environmental consulting firm, designed a method for auditing graffiti vandalism. The baseline audit was carried out in early November Subsequently a repeat graffiti vandalism audit was done in late October 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 to determine changes in graffiti behaviour as compared to the baseline work. Full details of the Audit Methodology and other Supporting Documents are available on-line at: 10

12 Results of the Edmonton Audit During the 2017 graffiti audit, the audit crew observed graffiti vandalism at 405 locations compared to 365 in 2016, 322 in 2015, 352 in 2014, 395 in 2013 and 438 in The audit found an 11% increase between in the number of locations in 2017 compared to those in At these locations, 1,947 tags were recorded, compared to 1,575 in 2016; 977 in 2015, and 1,071 in This is an increase of 24% year-over-year compared to Figure 1 - Locations & Tag Count Summary Locations & Tags Increased in % increase in tags in 2017 compared to 2016; 102 % increase compared to TAGS LOCATIONS % increase in locations since 2016; 26% increase compared to

13 Neighbourhood Graffiti Index & Rankings A graffiti index was determined for each overall neighbourhood examined and for each hot spot and random sample area. Table 1 presents the graffiti index for each sample area. Table 1 - Neighbourhood Graffiti Index Results 2017 The graffiti index is a way of examining the observations of graffiti in an indexed numerical comparison. Above in Table 1, we present the graffiti indexes for the "hot spot" and the "random areas." In Table 2, on the next page, the combined graffiti index for each neighbourhood is presented. For the hot spot areas, the average graffiti index increased considerably in 2017 compared to the indexes in It should be noted that these indexes have risen considerably for two years in a row, confirming that more graffiti has been observed during these two audits. In 2017 the hot spot index was 3.16 compared to in 2016; in 2015 and in For the random sample areas, the average graffiti index in 2017 was 0.640, compared to for 2016, in 2015, and in Six of the twenty neighbourhoods (Queen Alexandra, 12.92; CPR/ Strathcona Junction, 10.96; Garneau, 10.93; Strathcona, 9.86; Ritchie, 4.09; Downtown, 4.05) were above the average hot spot index of Three of the twenty neighbourhoods (Macauley, 3.968; Downtown ; and Boyle Street, 0.834) were above the average random area index of

14 Table 2 - Combined Neighbourhood Graffiti Index Results 2017 In examining Table 2 the indexed level of graffiti has increased significantly, nearly doubling, since

15 Figure 2 Combined Graffiti Index Results - by Neighbourhood Table 3 - Graffiti Occurrence by Neighbourhood Sampled 14

16 The Downtown and Strathcona neighbourhoods once again were neighbourhoods that were intensely tagged. This year however, for the second year running Queen Alexandra also showed intense graffiti tagging activity. The tags observed in the Queen Alexandra area rose from 68 in 2015 to 174 in 2016, to 322 in This 85% increase in tags over the previous year, places this neighbourhood as the second most tagged neighbourhood, only surpassed by the Downtown neighbourhood in the 2017 audit. Another neighbourhood with significantly rising tagger activity is Garneau. The number of tags observed in the past two years have gone from 99 tags in 2016 to 190 tags in 2017; which is a 92% increase yearover-year; and 443% increase since 2015, when only 35 tags were observed in this neighbourhood. McCauley has also been observed to have rising tagger activity. Tags observed in the past three years have risen from 61 in 2016 to 142 tags in 2017; which is a 133% increase year-over-year. Significant observations include: Tags in Ritchie decrease by 41% from 188 in 2016 to 111 in 2017 Decreases in graffiti tags were noted in Alberta Avenue, Beacon Heights, Strathcona, Killarney, Eastwood, Ritchie, Beverly Heights and Parkdale neighbourhoods. Some of these decreases were from a relatively small base of tags (Eastwood, Beverly Heights) observed in other years, but they were noted as a downward trend in these neighbourhoods. CPR West/ Strathcona Junction saw 154 tags in 2017 (47% increase), compared to 105 tags in 2016; and 38 tags in Boyle Street increased to 109 tags in 2017 compared to 95 in 2016 (15% increase) Strathcona decreased to 241 tags in 2017 compared to 260 tags in 2016 but was still well ahead of observations of 141 tags recorded in Downtown increased to 383 tags in 2017 from 313 tags in This is a 22% increase from a large base of observed tags, and thus is of significance. There were 260 tags observed in this neighbourhood in

17 Table 4 - Comparison of Graffiti 2017 vs Neighbourhoods In each of the graffiti vandalism audits, unidentifiable (unknown) taggers are the largest single tagger group identified. When identifiable tags are examined, a relatively small number of individual taggers account for a significant amount of the graffiti in Edmonton. In 2017 there were 505 tags that were classified as unknown, compared to 567 in 2016 and 190 unknown tags in In 2017 auditors were able to read 48% of the tags observed, compared to 36% in 2016, 19.4% in 2015, and 25.3% in In the 2017 audit 471 taggers were identified (meaning the tag was able to be read), compared to 531 in 2016, 418 in 2015, and 400 in

18 Top 30 Taggers Table 5 Prominent Taggers Observed Tagger Tags % of total 1 SEEB % 2 OHSER % 3 RAIN % 4 PEACH % 5 MEAB % 6 ATLAS % 7 KRAFT % 8 ONLY % 9 AIZOR % 10 HAUSER % 11 VASER % 12 CASE % 13 BIKE % 14 CESEY % 15 OUT % 16 WANK % 17 BAZR % 18 BEAMS % 19 TRIOUT % 20 BLUE % 21 LUSID % 22 TERP % 23 BEEZ % 24 ENOTS % 25 JERK.CA % 26 CARMA % 27 CESY % 28 FAIRE % 29 YESIR % 30 STEAR 9 0.5% % Toal Tags Observed in ,947 In the 2017 observations, some new and significant taggers have surfaced in Edmonton. The most observed tagger was SEEB, had 93 tags; followed by OHSER at 54, then RAIN with 45. Tags observed as PEACH, MEAB, and ATLAS were also prominent in 2017 at 44, 43 and 37 tags respectively. Table 6 below, describes the most active taggers by neighbourhood during the 2017 graffiti audit. 17

19 Table 6 - Neighbourhood Graffiti - Most Active Taggers

20 19

21 20

22 21

23 Figure 3 - Top 10 Taggers in TAGGERS = 21% OF TOTAL TAGS HAUSER, 1.3% AIZOR, 1.4% SEEB, 4.8% ONLY, 1.5% OHSER, 1.7% KRAFT, 1.8% RAIN, 2.3% PEACH, 2.3% ATLAS, 1.9% MEAB, 2.2% Figure 4 - Six Most Active Neighbourhoods CPR West / Stathcona Junction, 7.9% SIX NEIGHBOURHOODS = 73.5% TAGS McCauley, 7.3% Downtown, 19.7% Garneau, 9.8% Strathcona, 12.4% Queen Alexandra, 16.5% Size & Descriptor of Graffiti In the 2017 audit the proportion of small tags was 82%, which was identical to the 2016 audit result, down from 86% in 2015, and consistent with the 2014 audit where small tags represented 83%. Medium sized tags stayed proportionally similar at 8% of tags, compared with 10% in 2016 and 8% in A small number of large and extra-large graffiti pieces (3%) were observed during the 2017 audit. 22

24 Table 7 - Graffiti Observed in 2017 is Mainly Small Figure 5 - Sizes of Graffiti Observed in 2017 GRAFFITI SIZES Large, 2% x-small, 7% Med, 8% x-large, 1% Small = 82% Regarding the artistic nature of graffiti vandalism observed throughout all the graffiti audits conducted since 2010, graffiti appears to be scrolled quickly onto property, in a stylized design as free hand text and not completed with artistic intent. Of the 1,947 observations made in 2017; 97% were text only tags, which is consistent with observations made in previous audits. 23

25 Table 8 - Summary of Graffiti Vandalism Observed in 2017 Like the finding above, the predominant category of graffiti (93%) is what is termed as marker or plain in nature, as compared to outline bubble-type graffiti or artistic drawings, a trend that has been observed in previous graffiti audits in Edmonton. Marker or plain graffiti tagging is textual in nature rather than being a picture or a drawing. Table 9 - Graffiti Categories 24

26 Figure 6 - Observed Graffiti is Not Artistic Outline Bubble Tag - No Fill, 4.3% ARTISTIC = 2.5% Artistic Tag, 2.5% Outline Bubble Tag - Two Colors, <1% Outline Bubble Tag - One Color, <1% Marker / Plain Graffiti, 93.1% Target Properties & Categories The audit team determined whether each item of graffiti was placed on City property, non-municipal government property or private property. Eighty-eight percent of graffiti vandalism tags in 2017 were observed on private property, compared to 89% in 2016, 81% in 2015 and 84% in Of the total tags on private property 777 of them were on waste and recycling bins in alleys and laneways. This represents 45% of all tags observed on private property during the 2017 audit. It is noteworthy that private waste disposal and private recycling bins have been observed for years to be major targets for graffiti. In 2017, there were 744 tags on private waste bins, and 33 on private recycling bins, together totalling 777 tags or 40% of all tags observed during the 2017 audit. This proportion of tags on private waste and recycling bins was 39% of all tags in 2016; and has been proportionally similar for all audits in the city. The consultant understands that the City s by-law may not provide for enforcement of graffiti on bins. There was s significant increase in tags on disposal and recycling bins in alley between 2015 (224 tags) 23% of all tags) and 2016 (615 tags 39%), which increase again in 2017 to 777 tags (40% of all tags). The number of tags on government (Federal) property continued to be small at just 2% of total graffiti tags at 67 tags (up from 27 in 2016, and 26 tags in 2015). The consultant noted that, in the past, most tags on federal government property were on Canada Post (grey) boxes. The proportion of graffiti on City property, remained at 9% of all tags. Of these tags, 81% (120 tags) were observed on City garbage or recycling bins in alleys and laneways. 25

27 Figure 7 - Graffiti Tags by Property Ownership 26

28 Table 10 - Graffiti Targets & Category Results 27

29 28

30 Location Intensity Rating (LIR) Location Intensity Rating (LIR) is calculated as a method to indicate the relative intensity of graffiti at a location within a neighbourhood. The LIR differs from the graffiti index in that the graffiti index measures the intensity of the amount of graffiti in the entire neighbourhood or hot/random area. The LIR measures the intensity of the graffiti observed at each individual location. It also includes factors other than just the amount of graffiti. The factors that form the LIR are described below. The LIR is a rating of each location and it is based upon: Size Score 1 for extra small, score 5 for extra large Colour Score 1 for low colour, score 5 for vibrant colour Complexity Score 1 marker plain text, score 5 for Outline Bubble multiple colours Artistic Score 1 not drawn / splash / slash, score 5 artistic execution Visibility Score 1 barely noticeable, score 5 could not miss it Longevity Score 1 old, faded, nearly not visible, score 5 recent, not removed Access Score 1 easy access, no likelihood of being caught, score 5 dangerous location Surface Score 1 bad surface, does not take paint easily, score 5 ideal graffiti surfaces Reoccurrence Score 1 none apparent, score 5 heavy reoccurrences The maximum LIR possible at any location is a score of 45 (9 factors x 5 points = 45) 29

31 Table 11 - Location Intensity Index - Top 50 Sites The top 50 Location Intensity Ratings listed below (full list Appendix J): 30

32 Conclusions The City of Edmonton s graffiti vandalism audit is an unbiased method of sampling graffiti vandalism in the City. Auditing the same neighbourhoods each year enables the City to document changes in the amount of graffiti observed in those areas. During the 2017 graffiti audit, the audit crew observed graffiti vandalism at 405 locations where graffiti vandalism was present, an increase of 11% over the number of locations observed in In 2016 there were 365 locations. The number of locations where graffiti was observed in 2017 increased by 26% compared to 2015 (322 locations) and by 15% compared to 2014 (352 locations). Data shows an upward trend in the number of locations where graffiti is observed since Correspondingly, in 2017 significantly more tags were observed than in 2016 or in In 2017 the audit documented 1,947 tags, compared to 1,575 in 2016 and 977 in This is a 23.6% increase over the previous year, and 99% higher than During the 2017 audit, the audit team traveled over 555 kilometres within Edmonton s 20 sample neighbourhoods, on streets, in alleys and in laneways recording graffiti observations. During this audit over 1,000 photographs were taken recording the graffiti observed. A comprehensive database was created to archive and analyse the data collected. Paper records, electronic data records and digital photographic records were archived to preserve the data gathered. The method used by the City of Edmonton, as developed with the consultant and the City for this audit, provides a repeatable and unbiased way of auditing neighbourhoods for graffiti vandalism. The neighbourhoods examined in this audit can be examined in the future to determine whether the amount of graffiti vandalism is increasing or decreasing. During the 2017 graffiti audit the consultant calculated a Location Intensity Rating (LIR) to examine the amount and intensity of graffiti at each of the 405 locations. For comparison purposes these intensities (LIR) of graffiti are plotted on neighbourhood maps in Appendix B showing graffiti locations and LIRs for this audit and for 2016 and Consistent with observing a significant increase in graffiti tags in 2017 compared to the previous year, the graffiti index also increased in The neighbourhoods with the greatest combined intensity index increases were: McCauley with a 135% index increase, Oliver with index increase of 90%; Queen Alexandra, an increase of 78%; Garneau with 73% increase. These data indicate that these neighbourhoods have significantly more graffiti vandalism occurring in them than in the previous audit in During the 2017 field work, auditors were accompanied by City of Edmonton Municipal Enforcement Officers from the Complaints and Investigations Section of the Community Standards and Neighbourhoods 31

33 Branch. The identification of taggers has been enhanced by having these staff participate in the audit due to their ability to read tagger names. Most graffiti tags are small covering less than sq. m (2sq.ft.). In the 2017 audit the number of small tags increased to 1,597 from to 1,288 in The proportion of small tags remained consistent with other audits at 82% of total tags. The graffiti observed in 2017 was predominantly marker / plain graffiti at 93.1 %; (93.7% in 2016, 94.1% in 2015 compared to 92% in 2014). This is graffiti that is textual or stylized in nature, and is not artistic in its design. The consultant notes that the proportion of total graffiti on city assets (signs, ETS, park furniture etc.) has remained the same since Most of the tags on city property are on garbage and recycling bins in alleys and laneways (81% of city tags (excluding ETS property) were noted on these bins). Commercial waste bins, parking lot barricades, signs and posts continue to be common targets for taggers. Private residential and multi-family residential properties are often targets of graffiti vandals, especially fences and garages in back alleys and laneways. In the current audit the consultant observed that murals, throughout the City, were not generally defaced by graffiti tags. This reinforces previous observations that murals can deter graffiti vandalism. 32

34 APPENDIX A - Overview Audit Sample Locations 33

35 APPENDIX B - Graffiti Observation Locations 34

36 Edmonton Graffiti Report

37 Edmonton Graffiti Report

38 Edmonton Graffiti Report

39 Edmonton Graffiti Report

40 39

41 Edmonton Graffiti Report

42 Edmonton Graffiti Report

43 Edmonton Graffiti Report

44 Edmonton Graffiti Report

45 Edmonton Graffiti Report

46 Edmonton Graffiti Report

47 Edmonton Graffiti Report

48 Edmonton Graffiti Report

49 48

50 Edmonton Graffiti Report

51 50

52 Edmonton Graffiti Report

53 Edmonton Graffiti Report

54 53

55 APPENDIX C Sample Photographs - Edmonton Graffiti Vandalism Samples of commonly observed graffiti Beez Marker Plain Graffiti Bubble Graffiti No Fill Sample of Stencil Marker plain tag on bus shelter Tag on Utility box Large Multi-Colour Outline Bubble 54