Fluent Essays

1 CPTED Best Practices CPTED Best Practices Your Name School of Computer and Information Sciences, University of the Cumberlands ISOL634 Physical Security Instructor Name Current Date Table of Contents Natural Surveillance (Note: H1 required) 4 Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 4 Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 4 Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 4 Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 4 Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 4 Best Practice n (optional) 4 Territorial Reinforcement (H1 required) 4 Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 4 Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice n (Note: optional) 5 Access Control (Note: H1 required) 5 Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 5 Best Practice n (optional) 6 Maintenance (Note: H1 required) 6 Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 6 Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 6 Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 6 Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 6 Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) 6 Best Practice n (optional) 6 References 7 Your paper starts here with the first paragraph indented. Start by writing a brief description of your approach to completing the assignment. (Note: Each Heading should have at least 2 properly formatted paragraphs and each paragraph should have at least 3 properly formatted sentences. Also, please delete all the notes before submitting) Natural Surveillance (Note: H1 required) Start typing here. Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here. Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice n (optional) Start typing here Territorial Reinforcement (H1 required) Start typing here. Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here. Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice n (Note: optional) Start typing here Access Control (Note: H1 required) Start typing here. Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here. Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice n (optional) Start typing here Maintenance (Note: H1 required) Start typing here. Best Practice 1 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here. Best Practice 2 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 3 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 4 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice 5 (Note: H2 required. Substitute name of best practice) Start typing here Best Practice n (optional) Start typing here References There are no sources in the current document. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239746349 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography Article  in  Property Management · December 2005 DOI: 10.1108/02637470510631483 CITATIONS 456 READS 27,012 3 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Night-time economy crime precipitators View project Sustainable Development / Public health View project Paul Cozens Curtin University 61 PUBLICATIONS   2,113 CITATIONS    SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Cozens on 24 January 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239746349_Crime_Prevention_through_Environmental_Design_CPTED_A_Review_and_Modern_Bibliography?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239746349_Crime_Prevention_through_Environmental_Design_CPTED_A_Review_and_Modern_Bibliography?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/project/Night-time-economy-crime-precipitators?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/project/Sustainable-Development-Public-health?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Cozens?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Cozens?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_5&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Curtin_University?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Cozens?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_7&_esc=publicationCoverPdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Cozens?enrichId=rgreq-1c8f0fecd01a4e26f961eaeb3f74d89e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzOTc0NjM0OTtBUzoxMDE1NzM2ODY0NjQ1MThAMTQwMTIyODQ2MjU3MA\%3D\%3D&el=1_x_10&_esc=publicationCoverPdf Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography Paul Michael Cozens Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Perth, Australia Greg Saville University of New Haven, New Haven, Connecticut, USA, and David Hillier University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically review the core findings from recently published place-based crime prevention research. The paper aims to critically evaluate the available evidence on the contribution of crime prevention through environmental design as a crime prevention strategy. Design/methodology/approach – Large-scale evaluations of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) are reviewed with a view to clarifying current knowledge on the evidence of crime prevention through environmental design. Findings – The review concludes that there is a growing body of research that supports the assertion that crime prevention through environmental design is effective in reducing both crime and fear of crime in the community. Research limitations/implications – Although the paper may not review all the evaluations of CPTED, it nonetheless provides a detailed compilation and overview of the most significant research in the area, including an extensive and modern bibliography on the subject. Research implications will be the subject of a forthcoming paper. Practical implications – CPTED is an increasingly fashionable approach and is being implemented on a global scale. Additionally, individual components such as territoriality, surveillance, maintenance, access control, activity support and target-hardening are being widely deployed. However, the evidence currently available is inconclusive and much criticised, which effectively prevents widespread intervention and investment by central government. The paper details the difficulties associated with demonstrating the effectiveness of CPTED. Originality/value – The paper concludes that although empirical proof has not been definitively demonstrated, there is a large and growing body of research, which supports the assertion that crime prevention through environmental design is a pragmatic and effective crime prevention tool. This review provides an extensive bibliography of contemporary crime prevention through environmental design and a follow-up paper will discuss the future research priorities for it. Keywords Crimes, Crime research, Burglary, Surveillance, Urban areas Paper type Literature review Introduction Crime and the fear of crime are pervasive and endemic concerns in modern post-industrial society and criminal justice systems are clearly failing to tackle both issues. The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-7472.htm PM 23,5 328 Received January 2005 Revised April 2005 Property Management Vol. 23 No. 5, 2005 pp. 328-356 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0263-7472 DOI 10.1108/02637470510631483 www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-7472.htm Brantingham and Brantingham (1991) have argued that there are four dimensions to any crime namely, the law, the offender, the target and the location. Place-based crime prevention strategies focus upon the crime site – the spatial aspects of a target and the specific location of crime. Crucially, Herbert and Hyde (1985) note that if the spatial distribution of offences and offenders were random, then environmental criminology would be of little interest to either scholars or commentators on either criminal or social policy. Indeed, crime is not randomly distributed and “hot spots” of crime have been acknowledged since the mid-nineteenth century (Guerry, 1833; Fletcher, 1849; Mayhew, 1862) as the Industrial Revolution produced a new and previously unconsidered scale of urbanisation. The study of “hot spots” has received increasing attention in recent years (i.e. Nasar and Fisher, 1993; Lupton, 1999). As a place-based crime prevention strategy, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) emerged as an independent theory and is now increasingly fashionable and is being implemented worldwide (Cisneros, 1995). Empirical research, which attempts to measure the component parts of the built and social environment, to make purposeful modifications to it and evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions, is fraught with difficulty. Indeed, Schneider and Kitchen (2002, p. 158) comment that in practice, “it would be as difficult as untangling a spider’s web to evaluate the effectiveness of specific place-based crime prevention measures”. Gill and Turbin (1999, p. 180) concur “policymakers and practitioners want quick decisions about whether a measure has been ‘effective’ or has reduced crime, while academics stress the need to do things properly, which takes time”. In stating that, this paper will briefly discuss CPTED and present the key arguments for the application of the component parts of CPTED and more comprehensive CPTED programmes. This review also provides an extensive bibliography on the subject of CPTED. What is CPTED? CPTED is an acronym for crime prevention through environmental design which asserts that “the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life” (Crowe, 2000, p. 46). It is based on studies executed from the mid-twentieth century onwards (Lynch, 1960; Jacobs, 1961; Angel, 1968; Jeffery, 1971; Newman, 1973; Gardiner, 1978; Clarke and Mayhew, 1980; Poyner, 1983; Coleman, 1985). A range of theoretical criticisms of CPTED have been expressed (e.g. see Adams, 1973; Hillier, 1973; Kaplan, 1973; Bottoms, 1974; Mawby, 1977; Mayhew, 1979; Booth, 1981; Poyner, 1983) and are discussed elsewhere (see Cozens et al., 2001a). However, ongoing refinement, of what is now known as first-generation CPTED, by researchers, practitioners and policy makers, has arguably responded to criticism to craft a more robust and rigorous approach referred to as second generation CPTED (Saville and Cleveland, 1997). This refinement extends beyond mere physical design to include social factors. Second generation CPTED uses risk assessments, socio-economic and demographic profiling (Saville, 1996; Plaster Carter, 2002) as well as active community participation (Sarkissian and Perglut, 1994; Sarkissian and Walsh, 1994; Saville, 1995; Sarkissian et al., 1997; Plaster Carter, 2002). Such developments in CPTED (e.g. Taylor et al., 1980; Wilson and Kelling, 1982; Poyner, 1986; Sarkissian and Walsh, 1994; Saville, 1995; Crowe, 2000; Zelinka and Brennan, 2001) and Situational Crime Prevention[1] in Britain (Clarke and Mayhew, 1980; Clarke, 1992, 1995, 1997) have popularised, refined and advanced the design-affects-crime debate. CPTED 329 Following Newman (1973), Moffat (1983) proposed that there are six broad characteristics to first-generation CPTED concepts; territoriality, surveillance (informal and formal), access control, image/maintenance, activity programme support and target hardening (see Figure 1). By optimising opportunities for surveillance, clearly defining boundaries (and defining preferred use within such spaces) and creating and maintaining a positive “image”, urban design and management can discourage offending. This is explained by the fact that offenders are potentially more visible to “law-abiding” others, and therefore, perceive themselves to be more at risk of observation and subsequent apprehension. Additionally, a well-maintained and appropriately used environment can signify that a sense of “ownership” and proprietary concern exists within the community. Some researchers (e.g., Fisher and Nasar, 1992) have introduced a threefold grouping of physical features; prospect (for the user), refuge (for the potential offender) and escape (for the user and potential offender) into CPTED theory and Taylor and Harrell (1996, p. 9) conclude; “research confirms that fear [of crime] is higher in locations that offer good refuge for the potential offender but low prospect and escape for the user”. Research supporting CPTED component parts Since CPTED is a complex strategy that will include a range of interventions and behavioural responses from various user groups, the research examined will be presented and analysed under six broad headings (not always mutually exclusive), Figure 1. First-generation CPTED – the key concepts PM 23,5 330 namely; territoriality, surveillance, access control, activity support, image/management, and target hardening. CPTED studies using multiple interventions are also examined. Territoriality Territoriality is a design concept directed at reinforcing notions of proprietary concern and a “sense of ownership” in legitimate users of space thereby reducing opportunities for offending by discouraging illegitimate users. In first-generation CPTED it is the primary umbrella concept upon which all the others are based. Different forms include symbolic barriers (e.g. signage) and real barriers (e.g. fences or design that clearly defines and delineates between private, semi-private and public spaces). Access control and surveillance will also contribute towards promoting territoriality by promoting legitimate users’ informal social control. CPTED emphasises crime prevention techniques that exploit the opportunities in the environment “both to naturally and routinely facilitate access control and surveillance, and to reinforce positive behaviour in the use of the environment” (Crowe, 2000, p. 37). These strategies are not independent of one another, and they act in concert to use physical attributes to separate public, public-private and private space, to define ownership (e.g. fences, pavement treatments, signs, landscaping and artwork) and define acceptable patterns of usage, in addition to promoting opportunities for surveillance. A study by Brown and Bentley (1993) showed how some burglars used territoriality to evaluate risk and territoriality was also supported by the findings from a study of fear of crime (Perkins and Taylor, 1996). Eliminating any unassigned spaces and ensuring all spaces have a clearly defined and designated purpose, are routinely cared-for and monitored is also a component of territoriality. Research on territoriality has shown it to be most effective at the local level (Brown and Altman, 1983; Taylor, 1988; Ratcliffe, 2003) although it is fraught with difficulties associated with definition, interpretation and measurement. Indeed, Merry (1981) observes how territoriality varies between cultures, neighbourhoods and individual groups. Although still controversial, enhanced levels of territoriality have been linked to reduced levels of recorded crime and fear of crime (e.g. Taylor et al., 1985; Brown, 1987; Brown and Perkins, 1992; Perkins et al., 1992; Perkins and Taylor, 1996; Brown, 2001; Ratcliffe, 2003). Surveillance Physical design has the capacity to promote informal or natural surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents and surveillance is part of capable guardianship (Painter and Tilley, 1999). If offenders perceive that they can be observed (even if they are not), they may be less likely to offend, given the increased potential for intervention, apprehension and prosecution. Different types include natural (e.g. residents’ self-surveillance opportunities as facilitated by windows) formal or organised (e.g. police patrols) and mechanical surveillance strategies (e.g. street lighting and CCTV). Surveillance – informal/natural. Angel (1968) predicted that certain critical levels of street activity and population density were linked to crime. A critical crime “zone of intensity” was therefore one that could support low numbers of people but in sufficient densities to contain both victims and offenders. Loukaitou-Sideris (1999) has proposed CPTED 331 that a second level population density exists; where the density is sufficiently high to mask a range of less serious offences such as pick pocketing and petty theft. In a review of studies relating to residential burglary, Sorenson (2003) observes how burglars avoid targets that are readily overlooked by neighbours and/or passers-by. Properties with low levels of lighting at night, high walls/fences, or thick trees or shrubbery can provide concealment opportunities for burglars particularly when close to points of access such as windows and doors (Weisel, 2002). The intervisibility and enhanced surveillance opportunities provided by terraced housing, for example, have been noted by a number of researchers (Newman, 1975; Pascoe, 1993; Steventon, 1996; Hillier and Shu, 2000a; Cozens et al., 2001b) and the UK Government, explicitly in the DETR Bulletin No. 32 – The Layout of Residential Roads and Footpaths (DETR, 1998). Research being conducted at University College London, at the Space Syntax Laboratory claims “linear integrated spaces with some through movement and strong intervisibility of good numbers of entrances . . . are the safest spaces” (Hillier and Shu, 2000b, p. 4). However, the existence of natural surveillance opportunities within the built environment does not necessarily mean that surveillance is routinely taking place, or that any direct action by citizens (e.g. challenging, reporting or direct intervention) is guaranteed (Barr and Pease, 1992). Indeed, this is one of the reasons for the development of second generation CPTED, which now seeks to engender positive social activities and diversity to encourage neighbours to take ownership of space and take advantage of natural surveillance. Surveillance – formal/organised. Formal (or organised) surveillance is also provided by local stakeholders (shop keepers, security guards). Four studies of increased formal guardianship at parking lots and garages have demonstrated reductions in car-related crime (Poyner, 1991; Laycock and Austin, 1992; Poyner, 1994; Barclay et al., 1996) while one study found no such reduction (Hesseling, 1995). Poyner (1991) notes that strategies to control access may reduce thefts of vehicles, but may do little to impact on theft from vehicles, raising the issue that what guards actually do may be as important as their physical presence. In the retail industry, in stores with two, as opposed to one member of staff on duty, fewer robberies were reported in a number of studies (Hunter and Jeffery, 1992). Even though a study by La Vigne (1991) found no such relationship, a major study by Figlio points to a strong effect (National Association of Convenience Stores, 1991). That study examined 340 retail stores in America and found that robberies declined in stores that changed from employing one to two staff. Where police evaluated a city regulation requiring two staff to be on duty, robberies declined immediately after the regulation was introduced (Clifton, 1987) and for several years afterward (Bellamy, 1996). CCTV and silent alarms did not reduce robberies in a study of 55 stores (Crow and Erickson, 1984), although interactive CCTV did reduce robberies in their first year of introduction (National Association of Convenience Stores, 1991). Retail store redesign to enhance surveillance yielded significant reductions in shoplifting in one store (Farrington et al., 1993). Security guards have long been used to reduce crime and have been shown to prevent bank robberies (Hannan, 1982) along with the use of protective screens (Grandjean, 1990). In Victoria, Australia, a range of security devices (screens, guards and cameras) reduced bank robberies (Clarke et al., 1991) although patrols by the mobile security guards known as the Guardian Angels at railway stations did not PM 23,5 332 reduce crime in America (Kenney, 1986) or on the London Underground, England (Webb and Laycock, 1992). An increase in ticket collectors at a Canadian ferry terminal reduced fare evasion by an estimated 20 per cent (Deschamps et al., 1992) while a Dutch initiative using over 1,000 unemployed young people to monitor ticket use resulted in significant reductions in cases of recorded assaults and harassment (Van Andel, 1986). However, neither of these studies used control groups as a baseline comparison against which to measure existing trends, or to include other independent factors that may be acting to reduce crime in the wider community. Surveillance – mechanical (CCTV). Evaluating the effectiveness of CCTV is also problematic and despite the rapid growth in the deployment of CCTV, particularly in British cities Armitage (2002, p. 1) argues, “there is very little substantive research evidence . . .that CCTV works”. However, some studies report positive findings. Poyner (1988) reviewed the effectiveness of the installation of CCTV on buses and found reductions in vandalism on the targeted buses and the diffusion of benefits to the entire fleet. Webb and Laycock (1992) found CCTV installation at London Underground stations reduced robberies compared with a control group and similarly CCTV at parking lots has been found to reduce car-related crime (Poyner, 1991; Tilley, 1993). Brown (1995) reported on three evaluations of CCTV in Britain, which resulted in reductions in burglaries, car thefts and theft from vehicles. Some studies also revealed that CCTV can significantly reduce levels of fear of crime within the community (Chatterton and Frenz, 1994; Sarno, 1996; Mahalingham, 1996). Eck (1997) reviewed one empirical CCTV study of 15 housing complexes for the elderly in England (Chatterton and Frenz, 1994) and reported significant reductions in burglary. Skinns (1998) evaluated CCTV in Doncaster (UK) and found vehicle crime reduced while other property crimes were not. Armitage et al. (1999) discovered CCTV significantly decreased all recorded property crime (burglary, car crime, criminal damage, handling stolen goods and fraud) in Burnley (UK). CCTV may deter criminal offences (e.g. vehicle crime or burglary) due to a perceived increase in the risk of detection (that may outweigh the perceived potential benefits). However, in alcohol-related crime (such as public disorder) where “rationality” is often absent, the deterrent effect of CCTV may be nullified. More recently, in a Home Office study, Welsh and Farrington (2002) systematically reviewed the crime prevention impact of CCTV in 18 evaluations. The evaluation incorporated meta-analytic techniques (the arithmetic extraction of net success (Pawson and Tilley, 1997)) and used before-and-after measures of crime for both experimental and control areas. Overall, a 5 per cent reduction in recorded crime was reported and half of the studies, (all in the UK) revealed a fall in recorded crime. CCTV was found to have a significant crime reduction effect on recorded vehicle crime (from eight studies) but no effect on violent crime (from five studies). This anomaly may be partially explained by the link between violent crime and alcohol/drug abuse. In terms of the city centre and public housing areas there was little evidence of crime reduction and in four public transport studies, two found reductions, one found no effect and one found an increase in recorded crime. In car parks, however, there was evidence of a significant (41 per cent) reduction in vehicle crime in experimental areas compared with control areas (although other strategies, such as lighting and signage, were also present in all the five studies of car parks). The studies of city centre and CPTED 333 public transport measured a much wider range of crimes and Welsh and Farrington (2002) raise the question as to whether the package of interventions, focused on a specific crime type (car-related) is what made the CCTV-led schemes in car parks apparently so effective. Armitage (2000, p. 5) summarises this review (Welsh and Farrington, 2002) suggesting, “CCTV appears to have no effect on violent crime, a significant effect on vehicle crimes and it is most effective when used in car parks”. Armitage, 2002 observes how the effects of CCTV on crime can begin before the cameras become operational (Brown, 1995) by virtue of publicity campaigns. She also highlights the fact that the preventative potential of CCTV has a life cycle such that, unless routine management and publicity is maintained, any initial reductions in crime will evaporate (Webb and Laycock, 1992; Brown, 1995; Tilley, 1993; Armitage et al., 1999). Forthcoming research by the Home Office and Department of Transport and Local Regions (DTLR) will seek to address the lack of systematic evaluation (Armitage, 2002). Wilson and Sutton (2003) review open-street CCTV in Australia and note that Pawson and Tilley’s “realistic evaluation framework” (Pawson and Tilley, 1997) is widely considered as a sophisticated evaluation methodology noting that both Brown (1995) and Armitage et al. (1999) have applied it. They conclude that the effectiveness of CCTV “remains to be established in what locations and under what conditions” (Wilson and Sutton, 2003, p. 6) but warn against jettisoning the strategy, implying there is potential for CCTV as a crime reduction tool. Moreover, in consideration of the extensive range of different CCTV systems and the variable and unscientific monitoring and management strategies that are in operation, the problems associated with measuring and comparing studies on the effectiveness of CCTV is exacerbated still further. Surveillance – mechanical (lighting). After dark, surveillance opportunities are affected by lighting conditions and much research has been conducted on this subject (for a review see Cozens et al., 2003). In America in the 1960s many cities began major street lighting programmes to reduce crime and initial results found that such improvements produced substantial reductions in recorded crime (Berla, 1995; Wheeler, 1967; Wright et al., 1974; Tyrpak, 1975; Hartley, 1974). These projects resulted in the decision by the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency to fund a review of these “positive” results (Tien et al., 1979). Of 103 studies, only 15 were considered sufficiently rigorous for evaluation and the review of these studies found that the results were inconclusive, and that other indicators of crime should be used in addition to recorded crime data. Farrington and Welsh (2002) argue that this review should have stimulated more studies but was mistakenly interpreted as demonstrating that lighting had no obvious effect on levels of crime and funding for research on this topic in the USA evaporated. In the UK, lighting studies in Hammersmith and Fulham (Painter, 1991a) and the North West of England (Painter, 1991b) reported reductions in crime and disorder. A Home Office funded study (Atkins et al., 1991) conducted in Wandsworth found no effect on crime, as did a review by Ramsay (1991) although it did suggest improved street lighting could reduce the fear of crime. Other studies in Cardiff (Herbert and Moore, 1991), Hull (Davidson and Goodey, 1991), Leeds (Burden and Murphy, 1991) and Strathclyde (Ditton et al., 1993) produced inconclusive findings using “before” and “after” comparisons but failed to provide a control area (Painter and Farrington, 1997). Bainbridge and Painter (1993) studied improved lighting in Birmingham’s inner city, which despite the collection and analysis of some additional social survey data, also PM 23,5 334 proved inconclusive. Methodological inadequacies have raised serious doubts about the validity of many of these exploratory studies (Painter and Farrington, 1997). A study by Painter and Farrington (1997), which used experimental and control areas, showed reductions in crime and an increase in pedestrian street use. They concluded “in the experimental area, there was a substantial and significant decrease in the incidence of all categories of crime after the improved street lighting” (Painter and Farrington, 1997, p. 221). The most recent review of lighting and crime research re-examined a number of studies conducted in the UK and the USA (Farrington and Welsh, 2002). This systematic review (which excluded several poorly designed lighting evaluations) found that improved street lighting reduced recorded crime overall by 7 per cent in the eight American studies and by 30 per cent in the five UK studies, and reductions in recorded crime were also demonstrated during the day – suggesting that street lighting is likely to have an effect by increasing community pride and informal social control rather than by simply improving surveillance opportunities (Farrington and Welsh, 2002). Across all the studies the crime reduction effect was 20 per cent. The UK studies included Poyner (1991), Shaftoe (1994), Poyner and Webb (1997), Painter and Farrington (1997, 2001a) and Painter and Farrington (1999). Studies have also revealed that the financial benefits (based upon government estimates of the financial costs of various crimes) of improved street lighting schemes far outweighed their initial costs (Painter and Farrington, 2001b). In the context of recent research, Pease (1998, p. 2) argues the case is proven and states “our aim should now be to use context-appropriate lighting schemes as part of a full repertoire of crime reduction tactics”. In summary, natural surveillance (e.g. residents’ self-surveillance opportunities as facilitated by windows) formal surveillance (e.g. police patrols) and mechanical surveillance strategies (e.g. street lighting and CCTV) have all proven effective in reducing both crime and the fear of crime. Access control Access control is a CPTED concept focused on reducing opportunities for crime by denying access to potential targets and creating a heightened perception of risk in offenders. Access control can include informal/natural (e.g. spatial definition), formal/organised (e.g. security personnel) and mechanical (e.g. locks and …