- Global indicators operate at country level and overlook contextually relevant community needs, limiting their usefulness for local assessment of safety and peace.
- Safety and peace are dynamic, fluid constructs understood differently across countries, provinces and communities, requiring local interpretation and measurement.
- Community participatory data informed the CSPI, revealing dimensions: physical and social disorder, cohesion, structural security, social justice, relationships, crime and values.
Afr J Psychol Assess. 2026 Jun 24;8:200. doi: 10.4102/ajopa.v8i0.200. eCollection 2026.
ABSTRACT
Indicators measuring the progress of safety and peace have been pursued at a macro (global) and meso level (community). While global indicators focus on the country-level indicators, it does not consider the community-level contextually relevant needs of the indicators. While the global indicators present a general framework to measure safety and peace, these constructs are dynamic and fluid, and thus understood differently within and across countries, provinces and communities. Drawing on data collected through community participatory processes, this study aims to compare existing global indicators with community-level indicators of peace and safety and to evaluate the usefulness of these global indicators for measuring peace and safety at the community level. This study forms part of a larger study the Community Safety And Peace Index (CSPI) that aimed to develop a contextually and psychometrically valid and reliable instrument to assess, monitor and promote safety and peace at the community level.
CONTRIBUTION: The analysis of the data revealed several dimensions of safety and peace, including physical (dis)order, social (dis)order, community cohesion, structural security, social justice, affective and interpersonal relationships, crime and violence and values.
PMID:42428569 | PMC:PMC13347859 | DOI:10.4102/ajopa.v8i0.200
Share Evidence Blueprint

Search Google Scholar
Save as PDF

