Women and children's presence at placed where a minimum level of safety is existing, could improve it too, but if they go to unsafe places (e.g. places with high crime rate against women and children), they may get into trouble and worsen the situation. So if we want to draw a 2D graph where x indicates presence of women and children and y indicates place safety, the curve may look like :" v ". Actually this is what I could imagine and conclude but for a clearer answer, probably you need to analyze real statistics. 

The question in my opinion is more general: does density inhibit crime? Is the fact of people living a certain public space a safer factor? I suppose some research in this way can be found. I remember something done in Spain (Sevilla University) at the end of 2010's. As a consequence, children living a public space may be considered as a sub-set of this wider set 

I would take a more spatial approach to this rather than a bald statical one of a factor like density.  Much urban research shows that density is not percieved by people very accurately whereas spatial configuration can have a major impact and incidentlaly can mask or accentuate perceived density.

However I am going to also question the causality link too.  So reframing the question might be are spaces that are good for children also good more generally?

Our text here might begin with the still marvellous book by Jane Jacobs, The Life and Death of Great American Cities.   In particualr start with her brilliant chapter on sidewalks.  In brief she argues that the cild palyin gon the old fashioned street probably bordered by high density terrace housing and with local shops etc will find that an adult seeing the children behave badly or stupidly (maybe running out into the road without looking?) will tell the child off and we might think threaten to tell its parents of the faulty behaviour. From this the child learns not only a better pattern of behaviour but that adults generally take care of children naturally,

Compare this with a characteristically new development with perhaps a designated playground.  Here no adults are naturally loitering or moving around so it becomes a place of unsupervised play and consequential bulleying etc.  A frightening place but the child learns allocated to children!  Even if staff are employed to supervise that child still learns that adults, if paid, will care for children.

This discussion is at the very heart of what makes good places.  There surely can be no argument that places that integrate children and adults and help build community life are quite simply better places.  Modern functionalism lost sight of this by allocating functions to zones.  Perhaps the biggest unwitting crime (allbeit well intended and fundamenatally socialist) of the twentieth century approach to urban and architectural design.

Yes sure

This the same when it comes to circulation for instance

Some argue that the segregation of pedestrian and auto motion is safer (i.e. in different routes)

Some say it is not. Combination of them is safer because it increases the potential of people's surveillance

In a broader spatial context: use human factor to make the urban design safer

Thanks everyone, some very interesting ideas here!

Mr Willams!

please say which country !which city?which society!

it has really different result!some countries they don't have rights! 

i have do some work about my country and i found that hard to tell here children are safe enough !if you are not safe you can't make a please safe

The first thing to come to my mind upon reading your question was the Ariana Grande concert, in which terrorist deliberately targeted a large gathering of young girls.  The second was the deliberate strategy of pedophiles to find jobs in which they work with children.  You have to consider both mentally healthy people and mentally ill sociopaths in you evaluation.

Jane Jacobs would argue that the answer is a sound YES, the logic being that:

More children playing means more parents watching and more eyes on the street which means safer streets. The challenge is how to differentiate between children and other people meaning that although a street with children playing is safer than a street with no children playing, they may not be safer than a street with adults talking......

If the presence of children improves safety, we should be able to reduce school shootings by increasing class sizes.

I can't remember the name of the group, but about 20 years ago there was a group of revolutionaries in Africa that kidnapped young boys, gave they automatic weapons, and trained them to recruit by killing the families of other young boys and kidnapping those boys.  Where do they fit into the picture?

During the Iran / Irag war in the 1980s, Iran recruited six years old children, with promises of martyrdom and paradise, to clear fields of landmines by marching through them.  I guess that they were making those fields safer, but where do those children fit into the picture?

I'm afraid this idea that "children make places safer through their presence" is wishful thinking.  It's best to leave safety to responsible adults.

Thanks Olavo, that is the line of inquiry I'm interested in taking.

Sorry James and Robert, slightly disturbed by these responses. While I guess they might be meant as dark humor it seems that you're focusing on some rare and extreme examples of abject horror on which to base your argument.  "It's best to leave safety to responsible adults." - By your own logic Robert where do the adult kidnappers fit into this? The adults who sold the guns? Also my question was about public realm, not schools or warzones, please read the question properly.

Diba - thank you , yes culture and politics would play a big role but I am looking globally for different examples and am not trying to imply that one solution would work everywhere.

Robert, again - making extreme examples of terrorism, murder and abuse the primary focus in our thinking about public realm and children is not helpful. 

Carlos, Your comment on vulnerability is noted but I feel misses the point. Your suggestion that "No crazy people surrounding is also desirable" is offensive, and not helpful.

Sorry Sam,

I did not realize that the public schools in America where mass shootings have occurred were not in the  public.  Good luck with your research.