How can the use of policy theories help to improve the development and evaluation of public policy. This question is central to this contribution. In order to answer this question, an overview is made of the development of the concept policy theory and its application in The Netherlands. More specifically, the relation between the rational approach of using policy theories and the quest for evidence-based policy is made. In addition, the possibilities and risks of theory-based evaluation ex post are explored. An important issue in both policy development and policy evaluation is the quality of policy information: which evidence counts? What quality criteria should be in place? On the basis of recent research by the Netherlands Court of Audit, an assessment is made of the actual quality of the ex ante evidence-based nature and the ex post effectiveness of safety policy in The Netherlands. The article presents conclusions and perspectives on how a more theoretical underpinning of policy programmes and a good use of theory-based evaluations may contribute to public policies that are not only effective, but that are also more open to policy-oriented learning.

The focus of this article is the relation between the factual conditions of the environmental quality of streets and neighborhoods and the perception of livability by residents.Through analysis of evaluation of environmental quality by residents, combined with observations by trained professionals of certain aspects of the environment (population, demography, type of housing etcetera) it was possible to identify the relations between the way livability is perceived, aspects of the neighborhood and household characteristics. By zooming in on the aspects environmental and personal security and safety the article shows how the environmental quality influences residents perceptions.

In measuring safety a difference appears to exist between ‘objectively measured safety’ and the subjective perception by the public. Objectively spoken the level of criminality in a neighbourhood may have gone down, but that doesn’t necessary mean that the people living there ‘feel equally safer’. Psychology gives a number of explanations for this phenomenon. For example, the knowledge, the differences in thinking styles and communication about safety with citizens play an important role. This should not be seen as a case of non-rational thinking, but rather of systematic irrationality. These people are not ‘dumb’, they have (sometimes hard-wired) ways of handling information about complex issues like safety that require them to take ‘mental shortcuts’ (heuristics) in order to estimate the risks they are exposed to. This paper will focus on some of the psychological laws that guide our risk perception and surprisingly enough, the ‘objective risk’ seems to be of relatively little importance if compared with other, more subjective factors. Many of the factors relate to the nature of information citizens are exposed to: a risk that this described in easy to imagine way leads to a different evaluation of that risk compared with a less conspicuous presentation. Also the level of expertise of the ‘receiving end’ must be taken into account. Lay-people have different ways to look at risks compared with experts in a certain domain. The discussion on how to improve safety is probably best served with a continuing debate between ‘rational, objective’ and ‘systematic irrational, subjective’ mental models, while recognising their respective strengths and weaknesses. These findings may assist policy makers in particular in the formulation of policy that, in addition to the security objective as such, also improves the perception of safety.