The Effects of CPTED on the Incidence and Fear of Crime - Essay Example

The Effects of CPTED on the Incidence and Fear of Crime Student’s Name. Institution Affiliation The Effects of CPTED on the Incidence and Fear of Crime Introduction In the modern world, security is of crucial importance to any individual, organization or even a country. With the evolution of anti-crime technology, criminals have also evolved with times to match this technology (James, 2008). As such, the more the efforts that are put into crime prevention, for instance by increasing surveillance, the more sophisticated the criminals get in order to circumvent these challenges to their operations. The rise in violent crime has created a need to bolster crime prevention efforts to protect human life and the right to property. This need has given prominence to the concept of CPTED. CPTED refers to the process of altering or influencing the physical structure of the environment in order to prevent or even reduce the possibility of a crime (Iyer, 2009). It encompasses altering or influencing the appearance of the physical environment in order to influence the behavior of potential criminals hence deterring the possibility of occurrence of crime. This aspect of criminology is continuing to gain an essence in the modern society due to the commonly accepted logic that prevention of crime is better and even more manageable than dealing with the aftermath of the crime. This paper seeks to look into the aspect of CPTED. Literature on the subject matter will be reviewed with a specific focus being made to the validity of the concept of preventing crime through altering the physical environment. Besides that, evidence on the practical aspects of this concept will also be weighed alongside theoretical part with the aim of proving whether crime is preventable through the design of the physical environment. This paper will look into the role played by the incorporation of security hardware, the design of the site and psychology in developing a crime free environment. (a) Is CPTED Valid? The International society of Criminology (2014) states that the concept of preventing crime by the design of the environment is a very valid approach in today’s culture. This approach is valid because it integrates security in our structures and the built environment. This organization further asserts that such integration creates a discreet security system hence influencing the psychological condition of the potential criminal in that it creates the impression that one is being watched the preventive aspect hence. Such an impression can reduce the incidence and fear of crime. According to Stockwell (2013), the designing of the structure in a way that creates a defensible space is of utmost importance in reducing or even preventing crime in today’s society. He writes that such a space provides control by the mere fact that they provide opportunities for incorporation of the various elements of preventing crime through the design of the environment. The incorporation of defensible structures in Stockwell’s view involves the determination of the privacy needs with respect to the physical environment. He further proposes that such needs are classifiable into three categories namely private, public, and semi-private zones. Concerning private zones, he opines that extensive surveillance is a priority as opposed to the public zones where surveillance is under the limitations of unrestricted access. On the other hand, he notes that semi-private zones are a transition between private and public hence the necessity to include design features, which can accommodate the transitionary aspect of this space. Moderate surveillance is necessary for semi-private spaces. He recognizes that the inclusion of this privacy needs impacts positively on the security of the environment in that they discourage a potential criminal due to the added risk of detection by the system. Of particular importance, is the fact that such measures are also considerate of the privacy needs of the people accessing these spaces, and this is in line with their privacy needs. In support of this arguments, Gilberto Suggests that the effectiveness of crime prevention through physical design is enhanced through the inclusion of physical or symbolic barriers to these defensive spaces (2007). The physical barriers for instance, electric fences, restrict movement whereas symbolic barriers like landscaping are just the definition of these zones besides enhancing the aesthetics of the environment. According to Barker and Salekin (2012), a vital determinant of the effectiveness of preventing crime through the design of the environment is the recognition of the territorial aspect of one’s environment. Such design can be seen through effecting a form of architecture that identifies areas in an environment that are restricted to certain individuals or even groups. They further note that the validity of the idea of CPTED hinges on the territoriality as it empowers those with the right to such territory to take charge of their environment. Buisson (2014) offers support to this premise by observing that territoriality offers one the moral authority and confidence to question violations that are likely to result into security concerns in their environment. As such, it is quite acceptable that territoriality (an aspect of CPTED), if well implemented can preserve the security of a certain environment. This preservation is because it creates a sense of ownership hence the duty to observe security measures of one’s environment besides empowering one to question any actions that could affect the security of this environment. Tilley opines (2009) that the validity of preventing crime through environmental design is best evidenced through the increasing popularity of security surveillance systems in various environments. He further opines that in today’s architecture, the presence of security surveillance systems is as common as the presence of doors and windows in these structures. As such, she writes that were it not for the effectiveness of such systems in promoting the security of their environment, their inclusion in the design of various environments would not be a reality. In support of this, Martin (2001) states that any reputable environmental design ought to recognize the role played by both informal and formal surveillance in safeguarding the security of a place. He defines informal surveillance design as one that limit the opportunity of potential criminal hiding through the help of pre-existing obstacles. Such surveillance is achievable through the incorporation of security considerations in architecture. This design is effective in that the probability of crime occurring in an open space is relatively low in comparison to a space with design obstacles. Formal surveillance is defined as one, which incorporates systems like closed circuit cameras as well as guard posts in a bid to deter potential criminals. It is the last course of action in cases where informal design is not applicable. Such cases could be in protection of public spaces that are deemed vulnerable as well as semi-private zones. The formal design is a necessity in environments where securities threats are a major concern hence the need for extensive security measures (Woods, 2001). The emergence of lighting as a decorative tool in environmental design can only be matched by its role in preventing crime through its inclusion in the design of an environment (Iyer, 2009). It supports the natural, as well as formal surveillance in that potential criminals tend to be deterred by the prospect of being identified in well-lit areas. Iyer writes that lighting is the most common technique in the prevention of crime through environmental design. He further opines that in the absence of adequate lighting, environmental design would never tackle the issue of insecurity since lighting supports all other security measures. Stockwell (2013) further offers credence to this observation by noting that the vulnerability of the environment to crime is greatly reduced in the presence of proper lighting. As such, it goes without saying that CPTED especially in respect to the lighting design of the environment is a very true premise. According to Kuhlhorn and Svensson (2005), the security of various environments is directly dependent on the understanding and knowledge of the designers of this environment in respect to criminality. Such is the influence of this knowledge that they assert that it even determines increasing occurrence of crimes like burglary due to weaknesses of these designs with respect to security. This observation is further given credence by Buisson (2014), who writes that contrary to popular opinion, physical security is meant to make it difficult for criminals to access a particular environment. This is in opposition to the notion that it makes the environment completely inaccessible. As such, it is quite evident that incorporating security designs in projects is a sure way of preventing crime through environmental design. This prevention is achievable through the integration of security programs in environmental projects. The International Society of Criminology (ISC) (2014) opines that activity support in a design plays a crucial role in crime prevention. Activity support is the utilization of signage in design to ensure that any environment is used according to its purpose. For instance, ISC writes that properly designed pedestrian lanes could encourage more people to walk hence discouraging criminal activities like assaults. This discouragement is because criminals tend to strike in isolated places hence the presence of considerable traffic in pedestrian lanes acts as a deterrent to such criminals. Gilberto (2007) offers a supporting view though slightly different in that he proposes that the mixed use of zones is a more effective deterrent to crime than just facilitating activity support. This security is enhanced since mixed use ensures that the activity levels are of a wide range. In a design, Gilberto proposes that this can be put into practice; for instance, through the incorporation of residential units alongside those meant for retail. As such, this further shows that the premise of CPTED is very valid and practical in today’s world. The National Crime Prevention Institute (NCPI) (2001) writes that target hardening is a very effective way of preventing crime in any environment. It defines target hardening as the process of ensuring that criminals have a hard time accessing a possible target. Target hardening is best achievable through its incorporation in the design process of the environment. Though there are reservations about whether target hardening is an element of CPTED, NCPI states that those reservations are unfounded. It suggests that those of contrary view are oblivious to the contribution of design in ensuring ease of accessing a certain environment. As such, target hardening gives further credence to the premise of CPTED. (b) Evidence in support of CPTED Theory The CPTED theory is because opportunities in the physical environment play a big role in the occurrence of the crime. The effectiveness of CPTED measures is very evident especially in cases where it has been put into practice. Mackey and Levan (2014) state that the effecting of the theory of CPTED affects positively on the residents of a certain environment. This theory affects results, for instance, from the improvements in security and the general feeling that residents will not be victimized. Through proper implementation of this theory, residents in a certain environment are assured of effective crime prevention measures as well as being empowered to contribute towards safeguarding their security. These positive impacts on such a society are strong evidence that the theory of CPTED is viable. Tilley (2009) notes that the leadership of local authorities is another group that can attest to the credibility of the CPTED theory. He notes that in areas where surveillance measures, both informal and informal have been established, incidences of crime have reduced significantly as opposed to places lacking any form of surveillance. She further supports this by stating that through surveillance, possible acts by criminals are preventable or even undesirable due to the increased risks that surveillance poses to such criminals. Such prevention goes a long way in proving that the theory of CPTED is very valid in today’s world. The ISC (2014) writes that the greatest beneficiaries of this theory save for residents of a particular environment are the law enforcement authorities. Through the effecting of this theory, this society notes that enforcement of the law is linked to physical structures in the society. In support of this, James (2008) further writes that crime prevention systems based on this theory are a welcome addition to these authorities. Such addition is vital because using these systems, the prevention of crime is achieved. In addition, whereby the commission of a crime has already taken place, presence of surveillance systems can assist such authorities in solving them. As such, it is quite clear that evidence is in favor of the theory of CPTED. Woods (2001) observes that businesses are significantly benefiting from their use of this theory in securing their environment. The success of businesses is directly related to the security of their environment. The effecting of environmental design in various premises has been on the rise. For instance, surveillance systems are commonplace in most businesses besides physical barriers as well as target hardening. This presence offers further support to the theory of CPTED. Further evidence in support of this theory is visible through the actions of architects (James, 2008). The architects are a significant group in the effecting of this theory since planning of the environment falls in their domain. The fact that among this vocal group, preference has been made to enhance safety through design shows that they are in total agreement with the theory of preventing crime through environmental design. Consumer preferences are the utmost indicator of support to this theory (Buisson, 2014). He observes that in recent times, property buyers have continually shown their inclination to environments whereby design has been incorporated in order to enhance security. The International Society of Criminology (2014) offers further credence to this observation by stating that properties in environments whereby safety measures have been undertaken through environmental design tend to fetch higher prices. As such, it is evident that the theory of CPTED is clearly entrenched in today’s life. Conclusion In summary, it is vital to note that the world is increasingly becoming more proactive towards issues concerning security. Due to the implications from insecurity situations, a lot of emphasis is being put on preventative measures, as this is easy and economically sensitive. The desire to maintain security without compromising on the aesthetics of our environment calls for a skillful approach towards security matters. As such, this explains the emergence of preference to the premise of CPTED. Such designs serve to enhance the much-needed security while at the same time protecting the privacy of individuals or even organizations. Hence, the prevention of crime through environmental design is a theory that is in practice today and will still be viable in the future. Therefore, the premise that CPTED reduces the fear and incidence of crime is true. References Mackey, D. A., & Levan, K. (2013). Crime prevention. Burlington, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning. National Crime Prevention Institute (2001). Understanding crime prevention. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. James, T. (2008). Promising and model crime prevention programs. Ottawa: Heinemann. Tilley, N. (2009). Crime prevention. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Woods, A. (2001). Crime prevention. New York: Arno Press. Kühlhorn, E., & Svensson, B. (2005). Crime prevention. Stockholm, Sweden: National Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, Research and Development Division. Whisen, P. M. (2010). Crime prevention. Boston: Holbrook Press. Gilberto, S. (2007). The practice of crime prevention. Lexington, Ky: National Crime Prevention Institute Press. Martin, J. (January 01, 2001). Social work direct practice with women prisoners. Australian Social Work, 54(2), 37-45. Stockwell, T. I. M. (August 01, 2013). Liquor outlets and prevention policy: The need for light in dark corners. Addiction, 92(8), 925-930. Barker, E. D., & Salekin, R. T. (November 01, 2012). The prevention of crime and peer victimization? Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(11), 1167-1175. Buisson, H. (2014). Crime Celebrities and Villains. Paris: M. Puget. International Society of Criminology. (2014). The causation and prevention of crime in developing countries. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Iyer, K. (2009). Theories of crime prevention. Bellingen: Maharishi European Research University Press. Read More