Crime Prevention Program - Case Study Example

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design” (CPTED) Student’s Name Institution Affiliation Introduction In today’s world, the rising cases of insecurity have created the need to promote security measures in our environment. These measures are facing challenges from the fact that evolving anti-crime technology is being met with sophistication in the operations of criminal elements (Mackey & Levan, 2013). In fact, Crawford (2009) notes the influence of the environment to the possibility of a crime incidence occurring is very great. He also notes that the increasing importance of privacy calls for intense security measures in order to safeguard this right. Such measures are because of the frequent cases of violent crime, which further show the importance of protecting the right to property. Due to the above and more concerns, the concept of CPTED has gained prominence. 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 (Eriksson, 2014). 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 strategies of reducing crime through environmental design. Besides that, this paper will focus on components that help to make the crime reducing strategies to be achievable. This paper will look into the role played by the incorporation of structural strengthening, security lighting and intruder detection technologies in environmental design to reduce crime. Strategies of CPTED According to “The National Crime Prevention Institute” (NCPI) (2001), the three main strategies for ensuring that the concept of CPTED is successful include controlling the natural access to a place, introducing natural surveillance measures, as well as reinforcing the environment or territory to enhance security. In support of these strategies, Wilson (2005) notes that the incorporation of environmental design to these strategies help in improving and maintaining the security of the built environment. These strategies are subject to further discussions as follows. (a) Natural Access Control Lindsay (2006) describes natural access control as the process of limiting the access to an environment to only the people with the right to access that environment. He opines that it is the most fundamental of all the strategies of CPTED in that it serves to reduce the chances of a potential criminal accessing a certain environment. Eriksson (2013) gives further credence to this observation by writing that the recognition of the privacy ratings of a certain environment makes this strategy to be very crucial. He further explains this assertion by noting that this strategy recognizes three kinds of spaces namely personal, private, and semi-private spaces. As such, Eriksson opines that the degree of security measures to be incorporated in the design of the built environment is, therefore determined in relation to whether the space is private, public, or semi-private. In support of this view, Gilbert (2012) states that public zones are designed for purposes of facilitating minimal restrictions due to the wide range of people with the right of access to such a space. In consideration of this factor, he suggests that any architect bent on promoting security through environmental design faces limitations to the extent of access control measures that he can incorporate into such a place. He however offers a reprieve by writing that though the extent of access control measures is narrow, the concept of CPTED still caters for security needs for public spaces. George (2010) notes that private spaces benefit from this strategy. These benefits arise from the fact that access control measures are very applicable in limiting the access to private zones to just the people with the rights to such zones. Kulham and Svensson (2001) define semi-private zones as those places that mark the boundary between the public and private spaces. Concerning such zones, they opine that moderate access control measures are applicable due to the need to ensure that those security measures are in balance with the rights of the public to such areas. As such, these restrictions in access reduce the chances of criminal elements accessing such zones. Silverman (2009) further supports this by saying that the incorporation of natural access control measures in the environment eventually makes the prevention of crime through environmental design an achievable pursuit. (b) Natural Surveillance Natural surveillance is a concept of CPTED that focuses on promoting the impression that the environment is under watch hence discouraging potential criminal activities from occurring (NCPI, 2008). According to Woods (2005), the increasing incorporation of surveillance systems in today’s architecture is an indication of public faith in these systems. Such faith is due to the ability of these systems to prevent or even reduce the occurrence of crimes in their environment. This faith, he notes is a further proving that the concept of crime reduction through environmental design has come of age. Natural surveillance can be classified into two forms. The first form is formal surveillance whereas the second form is informal surveillance. According to Frimp (2007), formal surveillance is the incorporation of systems in structures such as the security cameras to enhance security. It can even include the installation of guard posts in order to enhance the security of the environment hence reducing crime. On the other hand, he defines informal surveillance as one that alters the structural design of an environment in order to limit the chances of crimes occurring in such an environment. In relation to this, Frimp (2007) notes that designers ought to appreciate the role of pre-existing obstacles in influencing the incidence of a crime and focus on the elimination of such obstacles in order to enhance security. In relation to natural surveillance, Robinson (2002) writes that the possibility of a crime incidence in open places is minimal in comparison to closed spaces. However, he further suggests that incorporation of proper surveillance measures in the design of the environment greatly enhances security of such an environment regardless of whether it is a closed or open space. Besides that, Robinson recognizes the preference of informal surveillance since it is more discreet and cheaper in comparison to formal surveillance. However, Graham (2010) suggests that though he agrees with this opinion, increasing security challenges are a major factor. He adds that the need to create the impression that a certain environment is under watch has made formal surveillance a necessity in modern design. As such, it is clear that formal surveillance is a last resort in cases where informal surveillance fails to enhance security. According to Brizzolara (2000), the success of this strategy in facilitating CPTED mainly hinges on the psychological aspects of a potential criminal. He further expounds on this assertion by noting that if a potential infiltrator is under the impression that a particular environment is under surveillance, he is likely to abort his mission. This change of mind can be attributed to the additional risks of exposure that the system poses. Hence, it is evident that surveillance is a vital strategy in preventing crime through environmental design. (c) Territorial Reinforcement Territorial reinforcement is the use of design to ensure that people can clearly distinguish between private, semi-private, and public spaces (Dorn & White, 2008). Dorn and Write note that increasing security and privacy needs are greatly influencing the need to define one’s territory in a particular environment. This definition of territory is crucial in that it sets clear boundaries pertaining to access of a certain environment and the people with the rights to that access (Martin, 2001). This strategy of CPTED is very effective in that it serves to remind potential intruders of the possibility of exposure in case of any intrusion. Gottschalk (2012) notes that the territorial reinforcement empowers communities to be aware of their rights to a certain environment. This reinforcement increases the possibility of such people apprehending potential violators of this right due to the need to protect their space. Coning (2013) opines that in the design, territorial reinforcement is not meant to hinder the ability of a potential intruder to access a certain environment. Instead, he notes that the role of territorial reinforcement is to act as a reminder of the risk of exposure facing a potential criminal as well as promote a sense of security in the community. The incorporation of territorial reinforcement in design can be evidenced by the increasing use of landscaping and even low fences in defining boundaries to certain environments (Winters, 2003). She points out that for the concept of crime reduction through environmental design to work; the inclusion of the territoriality strategy is a necessity. She also points out that common practices of territoriality include the use of signage to define certain environments and landscaping among others. Such practices, Winters (2003) opines are meant to sensitize people on their right to the environment as well as discouraging potential violators of this right. According to Charles (2011), territoriality has become an integral component of modern architecture and design. This assertion serves to confirm that it is also a vital strategy in the concept of CPTED. Components of CPTED According to Tilley (2009), the strategies of CPTED are of little or no use if designers fail to incorporate various components in their structures. She writes that such components include structural strengthening, the incorporation of lighting as a security measure as well as the use of technology to detect and apprehend intruders. She further expounds on this view by stating that the above-discussed strategies provide just a structure upon which these security components are based. These components make the concept of crime reduction through environmental design realizable and attainable (Cozens, Hillier, & Prescott, 2001). In this section, we will discuss the above-named components in detail. (a) Structural Strengthening Structural strengthening is the designing of the physical structure of the environment in such a way that the possibility of any security violations is minimized (Tilley, 2009). This element of CPTED mainly serves to support the strategy of limiting the natural access control of the environment. Tilley (2009) opines that structural hardening is the most effective of the three elements in that it discourages a potential criminal from pursuing his intentions. She further notes that in cases where such a criminal chooses to proceed with the security violation, structural strengthening ensures that gaining entry becomes more difficult. Hence, this decreases the chances of a successful security breach in that environment. In support of the above view, Harding (2000) states that the strengthening of structures besides discouraging possible violations by potential criminals also promotes e sense of security. He further notes that current market trends show a strong consumer preference for buildings that have undergone structural strengthening. This observation, coupled with the evolution of architecture in response to this need has greatly promoted the concept of enhancing security through environmental design (Cozens, Hillier, & Thorn, 2008). Dorn and White (2008) observe that unlike popular opinion that structural strengthening is only possible at the construction state, technological advancements provide for this element even after the construction phase. Such post construction strengthening can be done on the floor, the walls roof, or even the ceiling. They also observe that the role of strengthening structures mainly boarders around discouraging unregulated movement as well as preventing unauthorized entry. As such, the connection between structural strengthening and natural access control is evident. This relationship is very crucial for the realization of the concept of CPTED (Cozens, Hillier, & Saville, 2005). (b) Security Lighting The link between lighting and security has existed since time immemorial (Silverman, 2009). This statement is true since criminals tend to prefer darkness as it reduces the risk of exposure in the course of the criminal activity. Hence, lighting is a major component in crime prevention since it supports the three strategies of CPTED. Whisenand (2012) states that proper lighting is vital in designing a secure environment as it serves to undermine the activities of criminal elements since it poses additional risks to their operations. Crawford (2009) notes that the evolution of lighting as a decorative tool reinforces the need for architects to incorporate it in such a way that it also serves the security purpose. He further observes that lighting is the most basic security measures hence the need to ensure that environments that are vulnerable to security breaches are well lit. He also observes that lighting is the primary tool for identifying people accessing a certain environment hence it is of great importance in enhancing security. (c) Technologies for Intruder Detection Despite the numerous efforts to prevent security violation, such violations cannot be wholly eliminated (George, 2010). This view is because criminals evolve with these efforts making security a continuing problem. Such technologies are integral in designing the security measures of any environment. Intruder detection systems are meant to come into effect once all the efforts to discourage possible intrusion have failed. As such, these systems are almost the last line of defense against a possible intrusion by criminal elements. George notes that these systems directly affect the strategies of territorial reinforcement and natural surveillance besides complimenting the strategy of controlling access. According to Woods (2005), these systems serve a several purposes including scaring potential intruders, activating other security apparatus, setting off traps for the intruders besides informing about the intrusion. He further points out that the essence of crime prevention lies in the ability of a system to create fear in the intruder and notifying of the intrusion in real time. As such, he concludes that technologies for detecting intrusion have excelled in their duty. Hence, the interaction between these technologies and the previously discussed strategies facilitates CPTED. Conclusion In essence, it is crucial to note that the concept of CPTED is integral in today’s society. Part of the reason is that the environment has a great bearing on whether a criminal commits a crime or not. It influences criminal elements in that the more the security gaps, the greater the chances of occurrence of a crime. As such, the need to ensure that our environment adapts to these security concerns calls for architects to incorporate security designs in their structures. Thus, the concept of CPTED is a valid and achievable effort that is easy to manage than the outcome of a crime. References Brizzolara, E. J. (2000). Proactive policing concepts cause reduction in crime. Journal of California Law Enforcement, 21(3), 12-16. Charles,K. (2011). Crime prevention: Protecting PHAs. Journal of Housing, 43(4), 25-30. Coning, E. (2013). Environmental design and crime prevention. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 28(1), 76-81 Crawford, A. (2009). Crime prevention policies in comparative perspective. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Pub. Cozen, P., Hillier, D., & Prescott, G. (2001). Crime and design of residential property-Exploring the perceptions of planning professionals, burglars and other users. Property Management Journal, 19(4), 222-248 Cozen, P., Thorn, M., & Hillier, D. (2008). Designing crime in Australia: A case study. Property Management Journal, 26(5), 295-309 Cozen, P., Hillier, D., & Saville, G. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328-356 Dorn, N., & White, S. (2008). Do European rules generate or prevent crime? Journal of Criminology, 20(6), 46-54. Eriksson, M. (2013). The prevention and detection of crime. Journal of International Crime, 82(3), 45-49. Frimp, D. D. N. (2007). Environment and crime. The International Crimes Journal, 32(2), 247- 265 George, L. H. (2010). The practice of crime prevention. Lexington, Oxford: Oxford Publishers Press. Gilbert, C. (2012). Concepts of Crime prevention. The Journal of Criminal Law, 5(2), 259-328. Gottschalk, P. (2012). The link between environment and crime. International Journal of Management, Knowledge and Learning, 14(1), 45-54. Graham, J. (2010). Crime prevention strategies in Europe and North America. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Institute for Crime Prevention and Control. Harding, C. (2000). European regimes of crime control: Objectives, legal bases and accountability. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 7(3), 224-243. Kühlhorn, E., & Svensson, B. (2001). Crime prevention. Stockholm, Sweden: National Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, Research and Development Division. Lindsay, B. (2006). Crime prevention: A new approach. Journal of Housing, 43(4), 25-33. Mackey, D. A., & Levan, K. (2013). Crime prevention. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Martin, J. (2001). Social work direct practice with women prisoners. Australian Social Work, 54(2), 37-45. National Crime Prevention Institute. (2001). Understanding crime prevention. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. National Crime Prevention Centre. (2008). Promising and model crime prevention programs. Ottawa: National Crime Prevention Centre. Robinson, D. M. (2002). Policing and crime prevention. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall Silverman, E. B. (2009). NYPD battles crime: Innovative strategies in policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press Tilley, N. (2009). Crime prevention. Cullompton, Devon: Willan. Whisenand, P. M. (2012). Crime prevention. Boston: Holbrook Press. Wilson, J. Q. (2005). Crime. San Francisco, Calif: ICS Press, Institute for Contemporary Studies. Winters, P. A. (2003). Crime. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Woods, A. (2005). Crime prevention. New York: Arno Press and the New York Times. Read More