Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design - Literature review Example

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Name Institution Date Introduction Over the years, the concept of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) has gained recognition as a location-based crime prevention model. The CPTED model serves to modify the physical design features of the built environment to reduce the crime incidence and increase the opportunities for detecting and deterring crime (Zahm, 2007; Armitage, 2013). Psychologist Ray Jeffery formulated the concept of CPTED in 1971, in his book “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.” Later, architect Oscar Newman made an improvement of the concept in his book “Defensible Space: - Crime Prevention through Urban Design" (Geason & Wilson, 1989). Initially, Newman’s concept was anchored in the Defensible Space Theory, which hypothesises that a built environment’s layout and design either encourages or reduces crime (Fonio & Ceresa, 2012; Atlas, 2013). For this reason, CPTED involves applying the physical design principles to mitigate opportunity for crime. Tim Crowe, later in 1991, modified Newman’s model based on Rational Choice Theory. This led to the ultimate classification of the concept into first- and second-generation CPTED (Crowe, 2000). In his review, Crowe (2000) explains that the first-generation CPTED centres around the improvement of the basic physical features of a built environment rooted in three components: natural access control, territoriality, and natural surveillance. According to Atlas (2013), the second generation CPTED is basically an auxiliary addition to the first generation CPTED that integrates analysis of social and cultural factors into reducing the opportunity for crime. It is based on the three components of the first-generation CPTED that this literature review is centred around. As a result, this literature review bases its assumption on the premise that CPTED reduces both the incidence and fear of crime. Therefore, the premise that CPTED reduces both the incidence and fear of crime is valid. Theoretical frameworks Since Jeffery’s formulation of the CPTED concept in 1971, several empirical pieces of research have examined the premise that CPTED reduces crime incidence by increasing the fear of crime. Cozens et al., (2005), and Cozens’s (2008) make up the two most prominent studies on CPTED during the last decade. Through systematic review of literature, Cozens et al., (2005) examined the CPTED concept based on the assumption that the systematic design and control of the built environment potentially reduces crime incidences by instigating fear of crime. Cozens et al. (2005) proved his hypothesis and gave credence to the capacity of CPTED to reduce crime incidence. In a related study, three year later, Cozens (2008) examined criminal behaviour based on CPTED and concluded that the cues to the apparent risk of deterred or being caught influences the decision to commit a crime. His fundamental supposition was that crime is contextual and opportunistic. What is notable from Cozens et al., (2005) and Cozens’s (2008) studies is that while CPTED is in itself a theory, it relies on several theories to cement the assumption that CPTED reduces the crime incidence by increasing the fear of crime. As Clancey et al. (2012) attempted to clarify, CPTED is premised on some theories that relate the building layouts and designs and their capacity to alleviate the opportunities for crime. The two prominent theories, as Clancey et al. (2012) explains, that attempt to relate the potential of a build environment’s design elements to deter and reduce crime include the Routine Activity Theory and the Rationale Choice Theory. According to the Routine Activity Theory, the nature of societal changes in respect to the increase or decrease of the “suitable targets” for crime, as well as the number of guardians against crime may either support or alleviate crime. Conversely, the Rationale Choice Theory relies on the potential offenders’ thinking process. Clancey et al. (2012) explained that the Rationale Choice Theory hypothesises that a potential offender undergoes through a process of considering the decision to commit a crime before either committing or not committing a crime. Linden (2007), who had earlier examined the processes of situational crime prevention and the latent mechanism, agrees with Clancey et al. (2012) and (Zahm, 2007), who also found that an offender would most likely base his decision on his assessment of the risks of detection against the anticipated rewards from committing the crime. From the two theoretical bases, it is clear that CPTED are designed chiefly for crime detection, prevention and response purposes. While this is so, CPTED’s methodology for crime prevention centres on the decision-making process of the offender and, therefore, proposes setting up of structures within the built environment intended to increase the fear of being caught or detected (Zahm, 2007). Hence, it could be reasoned that the basis of CPTED centres on the assumption that an intruder’s decision to intrude into the built environment is contingent on his cognitive ability, the time constraints and information resulting from his limited reasoning regarding the perceived rewards and likelihood of being caught. Significance of natural surveillance, territoriality, natural access control Based on the Rational Choice Theory, CPTED can deter and reduce crime and other antisocial behaviours. Cozens’s et al. (2001) study of Crime opportunities based on the types of designs of residential property to examine the opinions of building architects and burglars CPTED features, such as access controls can increase control and surveillance of the built environment, as a result reducing crime incidences. A later study by Cozens et al. (2005) was, however, more conclusive. The researchers examined the three components of the first generation CPTED, mainly the natural surveillance, territoriality, natural access control, and their effects of crime incidents. Cozens et al. (2005) concluded that having natural surveillance, territoriality, natural access control in the built environment effectively deterred and reduced crime activities and the associated antisocial behaviours. Cozens’s et al. (2008) later research also arrived at a similar conclusion. Indeed, this was indicated in their explanations of the first generation concepts of CPTED. Smith and Brooks (2012) portrayed access controls as the built environment designs intended to influence and direct human movement in order to get the most out of surveillance and security control. These may include the nature of landscaping, camera surveillance, and lighting. For this reason, having an open landscape and effective lighting make it easy to sight and detect an intruder. Cozens’s et al. (2008) also defined the natural surveillance as the designs within the built environment that increase visibility, as well as facilitates monitoring of the activities within the controlled environment. According to Aantjes (2012), territoriality describes the physical environment’s design that brings the perceived sense of a territory. Wortleyand McFarlane (2011) views territoriality as the CPTED features designed to mitigate circumstances leading to antisocial behaviours. Examples include controlling the growth of hedges or having a perimeter wall. Territoriality Territoriality, or defensible space, reduces crime incidences by moderating or eliminating the circumstances that support antisocial behaviour (Minney & Lim, 2005). A study by Cozens et al. (2005) reviewed published literature on CPTED to assess how organisations in Sydney deter crime incidences and established that when territoriality elements, such as fencing, is applied to control how a built environment’s legitimate users interact, criminal opportunities are potentially reduced. What these results imply is that CPTED deters and reduces crime incidents. Wortleyand and McFarlane (2011) later conveyed similar findings after they did a field experiment of CPTED with the Griffith University Library. Their objective was to study how territorial cues prevented the theft of photocopy cards. Wortleyand and McFarlane (2011) confirmed that territoriality presents practical crime prevention measures, as they influence the behaviours of legitimate users of a building. A study by Mohit and Elsawahli (2010) reflected Wortleyand and McFarlane’s (2011) findings after case study of Taman Melati Terrace Housing project in Kuala Lumpur. Mohit and Elsawahli (2010) examined how territoriality and access controls prevent crime incidences by increasing fear of being caught to the offenders, and established that territoriality reduces crime by increasing the potential offender’s perception of being caught. Hence, the efficacy of territoriality shows that CPTED reduced crime incidences. Surveillance Surveillance, as a component of the first generation CPTED, also reduces the incidents of crime by increasing the fears of being caught. The surveillance component has been widely reviewed during the recent past, as more and more built environments have incorporated physical security layers, such as closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) because of increased terrorism incidents (Docobo, 2005; Fonio & Ceresa, 2012). Roman and Farrell (2008) carried out a cost-benefit analysis of deterring crime using CCTV and concluded that they effectively minimised crime incidences, apart from being cost-effective measures. Cozens et al. (2005) also reviewed the benefits street lighting, CCTV, as well as through self-surveillance opportunities like the windows increased the fear of being detected while committing a crime hence mitigating crime incidences. For instance, in the presence of functional mechanical surveillance like street-lighting and smart CCTV, a potential offender is likely to perceive that someone else may be watching and his facial recognition can be analysed to detect his real activity. From the perception, the potential offender is likely to hesitate from committing a crime due to fears of running the risks of being caught. Welsh et al. (2010) also add weight to this argument as their finding on use of security guards and defensible space showed that surveillance increases fear of detection, as a result influencing a potential offender to hesitate from committing crime. Hence, Surveillance also justified that CPTED reduces the incidents of crime by increasing the fears of being caught. Natural access Natural access, as a component of CPTED, also reduces crime incidents by increasing opportunities for detection. Sakip and Abdullah (2012) explained that the significance of natural access lies in its potential to promote secure social interactions while simultaneously increasing a potential offender’s fears of being detected. Sakip and Abdullah (2012) did a pilot survey of the potential for CPTED to prevent crime in gated residential estates in Bandar Baru Bangi and Putrajaya in Malaysia. Sakip and Abdullah (2012) concluded that natural access reduced crime incidents in the population of study by influencing a potential offender’s decisions. The findings are consistent with that of Nes and Rueb (2009). Nes and Rueb (2009) had examined the spatial behaviour of residents in Dutch Housings. Their findings suggested that an environment’s spatial layout presented a range of opportunities for social interactions both legitimately and beneficially hence promoting secure communities. Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000) and Marzbali et al. (2011) made the significance of access controls prominent in the modern literature. According to Marzbali et al. (2011), access controls’ capacity to deter crime, by providing sage social interactions is based on its capacity to increase opportunities for detecting crime. However, it is Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000), which was cited severally by Marzbali et al. (2011), which makes access controls a powerful feature of CPTED. Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000) studied the efficacy natural access on the reduction of robbery incidents. The researchers’ results showed that, out of the 16 access controls intended to reduce robbery incidents, the crime could be prevented by as much as 84%. Hence, natural access also justified that CPTED reduces crime incidents by increasing opportunities for detection Conclusion From the literature, it is clear that CPTED reduces both the incidence and fear of crime. Therefore, the premise that CPTED reduces both the incidence and fear of crime is valid. Using the three first-generation CPTED components, mainly natural access control, territoriality, natural surveillance, it is established that CPTED reduces crime incidents and incidences by increasing the offender’s fear of detection and apprehension based on the Rationale Choice Theory. It is further established that the CPTED centres on the assumption that an intruder’s decision to intrude into the built environment is contingent on his cognitive ability, the time constraints and information resulting from his limited reasoning regarding the perceived rewards and likelihood of being caught. As the scholarly pieces of research indicate, having natural surveillance, territoriality, natural access control in the built environment effectively deters and reduces crime activities and the associated antisocial behaviours. The territoriality eliminates or moderates the circumstances that support antisocial behaviour. Surveillance also reduces the incidents of crime by increasing the fears of being caught. Natural access also reduces crime incidents by increasing opportunities for detection. References Aantjes, F. (2012). Residential burglaries: A comparison between self-report studies of burglars and observational data from Enschede. Enchede: University Twente ALAC. (2012). Environmental Design (CPTED) for licensed premises. Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand. Retrieved: Armitage, R. (213). Crime Prevention Through Housing Design: Policy and Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Atlas, R. (2013). 21st Century Security and CPTED: Designing for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Crime Prevention, CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Casteel, C. & C. Peek-Asa (2000). Effectiveness of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in reducing robberies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 18(4): 99-115 Clancey, G., Lee, M. & Fisher, D. (2012). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and the New South Wales crime risk assessment guidelines: A critical review. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 14, 1–15. Cozens, M., Saville, G. & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography. Property Management 23(5),328-356 Cozens, P. (2007). Public health and the potential benefits of crime prevention through environmental design. The NSW Public Health Bulletin, 18(11), 232-7 Cozens, P. (2008). Crime prevention through environmental design in Western Australia: planning for sustainable urban futures. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 3(3), 272–292. Cozens, P. Hillier, D. & Prescott, G. (2001). Crime and the Design of Residential Property - Exploring the Perceptions of Planning Professionals, Burglars and Other Users. Property Management 19(4). 222-248 Cozens, P., Thorn, M. & Hillier, D. (2008). Designing out crime in Western Australia: a case study. Property Management 26(5), 295-309 Crowe, T. (2000). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. 2nd edn. Boston: Butterworth - Heinman. Docobo, J. (2005). Community Policing as the Primary Prevention Strategy for Homeland Security at the Local Law Enforcement Level. Homeland Security Affairs. Retrieved: Fonio, C. & Ceresa, A. (2012). Integrated risk map: the theoretical framework. SMART CIBER – System of Maps Assessing Risk of Terrorism against Critical Infrastructures in Big Events Rallies Grant Agreement N. AG025 30-CE-0453363/00-22 Geason, S. & Wilson, P. (1989). Designing out Crime: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology Linden, R. (2007). Situational Crime Prevention: Its Role in Comprehensive Prevention Initiatives. IPC Review, 1, 139-159 Marzbali, H., Abdullah, A., Razak, N. & Tilaki, M. (2011). A Review of the Effectiveness of Crime Prevention by Design Approaches towards Sustainable Development. Journal of Sustainable Development 4(1), 160-171 Minney, J. & Lim, B. (2005). Measuring Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 22(4), 331-341 Mohit, M. & Elsawahli, H. (2010). Crime and Housing In Malaysia: Case Study Of Taman Melati Terrace Housing In Kuala Lumpur. Asian Journal Of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 1(3), 26-36 Nes, A. v., & Rueb, L. (2009). Spatial Behaviour in Dutch Dwelling Areas- How Housing Layouts Affects the Behaviour of its Users. Paper presented at the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm Sakip, S. & Abdullah, A. (2012). An Evaluation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Measures in a Gated Residential Area: A Pilot Survey. Asian Journal Of Environment-Behaviour Studies 3(10), Smith, C & Brooks, D. (2012). Security Science: The Theory and Practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Wortley, R. and McFarlane, M. (2011). The role of territoriality in crime prevention: A field experiment. Security Journal, 24: 149-156 Zahm, D. (2007). Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Problem-Solving. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Service Read More