Benefits and Limitations of CPTED Theory - Coursework Example

Drawing on an evidence based approach, discuss the benefits and limitations of CPTED as an effective crime prevention strategy in contemporary society. Introduction According to Australian institute of Technology (2012), crime prevention is the range of strategies implemented by businesses, communities or individuals to target the social and environmental factors that encourage the risk of crime and disorder. The strategies are aimed at deterring and reducing crime and criminals. An extension of this is the theory of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), which proposes that integrating the design elements of built infrastructure, physical security and natural environment without situational constraints can “reduce and deter crime and criminals” (Letch et al., 2011; Cozens, Saville & Hillier, 2005). CPTED model can be categorised into 1st and 2nd generation and is braced by rational choice theory which sees crime as resulting from deliberate alternatives made by offenders on account of their calculation of rewards and risks, the capacity of the 1st generation CPTED elements to effectively prevent crime depends on their capacity to influence a potential offender’s behaviour. This paper will discuss the theoretical frame of CPTED and the premised ability to reduce the incidence and fear of crime through design facets within CPTED. It will demonstrate that the correlation between the environment and human behaviour has been well researched to reach the conclusion that crime prevention through environmental design effectively reduces both crime and fear of crime within the community (Clancey, Lee & Fisher, 2012; Cozens, Saville & Hillier, 2005). The benefits and limitations of CPTED as an effective crime prevention strategy The concept of CPTED was formulated by psychologist Ray Jeffery in 1971, in his book “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design”, and later developed in 1972 by Oscar Newman, an architect, in his book “Defensible Space: - Crime Prevention through Urban Design". Newman’s design was based on Defensible Space Theory, which suggested that the design and layout of buildings can promote or reduce crime (Atlas, 2008; Geason & Wilson, 1989). Later models were recreated by Tim Crowe in 1991, basing on Newman’s model. By 2004, CPTED was largely recognised as Newman/Crow type models even as Jeffery model was considered as a multidisciplinary approach. Revision of the CPTED model in 1997 resulted to the classification of the model into 1st and 2nd generation (Atlas, 2008). Background Studies on CPTED According to Crowe (2000), the 1st generation CPTED is focused on the basic physical improvement strategies anchored in three essential factors, namely territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access control. It involves application of physical design principles to minimise environmental support for crime opportunity. Later Atlas (2008) showed that the 2nd generation CPTED is a supplementary extension of the 1st generation CPTED. He pointed out that the 2nd generation CPTED explores the social and cultural factors that influence and promote criminal activity. It is designed to strengthen physical environmental design by adding socially-cohesive stratagem. ALAC (2012) noted that evolution and implementation of the concept over the years as a location-based crime prevention strategy has underscored the physical design ingredients of surveillance and territoriality as the underlying contributors to a secure environment, both externally and internally. CPTED strategies have been examined severally by studies that examined the hypothesis that designing and managing the built environment can significantly reduce crime incidences. According to Cozens (2008) and Cozens et al., (2005), empirical studies that have examined criminal behaviour showed that cues to a perceived risk of being caught or deterred can influence an offender’s decision to offend. The underlying assumption is that crime is contextual and opportunistic (Clancey, Lee & Fisher, 2012; Cozens, Saville & Hillier, 2005). Several theories have related building designs and layouts and opportunities for crime to show that design elements of the build environment can deter and reduce crime. The Routine Activity Theory explains how societal changes in the extent of the “suitable targets” for crime, and how the number of guardians against crime can promote or mitigate crime. The rationale choice theory on the other hand directly examines the offender’s thinking process (Clancey, Lee & Fisher, 2012). The Rationale Choice Theory postulates that offenders consider their decisions before they commit a crime. The decision to commit an offence is depends on cognitive ability, time and information that results from the offender’s limited reasoning. According to the theory, criminals will commit a crime due to the benefits they anticipate from the crime (Clancey, Lee & Fisher, 2012). The offender bases his decision on this reasoning to determine the risk of detection or being caught against the expected reward. In crime prevention, the methodology is focused on the offender’s decision-making process, hence providing the structure within which crime can be prevented through use of surveillance to increase the chances of detection (Linden 2007; Clancey, Lee & Fisher, 2012). Benefits of CPTED Strategies Cozens et al. (2005) argues that the three elements of the 1st generation CPTED -- territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access control -- are effective in deterring and reducing crime and other antisocial behaviours. According to Cozens, Thorn and Hillier, (2008), Access control refers to the design that influences and directs human traffic or flow to optimise control and surveillance. They include the interior and exterior design of a building, lighting and landscaping. Natural surveillance describes the design intended to optimise visibility and to uphold the ability of the legitimate users to monitor activities in casual or formal manner. Aantjes (2012) explained that territoriality consists of design of the physical environment that extends to a perceived sense or territory or influence. They include controlling growth of hedges, removal of litter and graffiti and fitting faulty lighting. Mitigation of antisocial behaviour The element of territoriality deters and reduces crime by mitigating the circumstances that lead to antisocial behaviours. Cozens’ et al. (2005) critically evaluated published articles to determine how organisations in Sydney can design out crime. The researchers found that the three elements foster social interaction among legitimate users of the built environment by reducing criminal opportunities. The findings support the argument that territoriality can deter and reduce crime. The finding presented by Cozens et al. (2005) is consistent with those by Wortleyand McFarlane (2011) who did a field experiment of Griffith University library to examine the effects of territorial cues in crime prevention, The researchers examined how symbolic territorial cues could prevent the theft of a photocopy card left on a library desk. They found that territoriality offers community safety benefits as it leads to improved planning and designing decisions, which in return present organisations, businesses and surrounding communities with realistic crime prevention strategies by influencing behaviours. Using similar perspectives, Mohit and Elsawahli (2010) did a case study of Taman Melati Terrace Housing in Kuala Lumpur to determine the effects of access controls and territoriality. They examined the effect of physical design on crime incidences in residential areas of Kuala Lumpur City. The researchers tested the effects of the built environment on the likelihood of crime reduction using physical planning measures. They found that territoriality can reduce crime. The findings support the argument that territoriality can influence the thought of an offender into dropping criminal activities relates to deterring and reducing crime and antisocial behaviours (Mohit & Elsawahli, 2010). The argument is further supported by a study by a recent study by Aantjes (2012). The researcher did a comparison between observational date and self-report studies of burglars in Enschede, Netherlands. Aantjes (2012) established that commission of crime by the offenders is often based on a rational fashion due to influences of territorial cues. In which case, offenders tend to commit crime that offer less resistance, and which also offer the highest rewards while at the same time posing the lowest possible risks. This viewpoint suggests that crimes are likely to reduce social activities when the potential offenders get into contact with an appropriate crime target, and where chances of detection are perceived to be low. In a systematic review of the effectiveness of environmental interventions to reduce crime and fear, Lorenc et al. (2013) found that the fear of crime can reduce social interaction and outdoor physical activity. Based on the empirical findings, it is argued that by deterring crime, the community, organisation and businesses that operate within a built environment are given a sense of confidence, which enables them to interact freely. Social and economic benefits Incorporating surveillance features from the outset can bring long-term economic and social benefits. This is since because mechanical surveillance such as CCTV and street lighting can influence a potential offender’s behaviour by creating more risks of being caught. Roman and Farrell (2008) carried out a cost analysis of crime prevention using CCTV surveillance cameras, which is an aspect of 1st generation CPTED. According to the researchers, aside from the lure of being cost-effective in minimising crime incidences, surveillance reduces the average costs associated with preventing crime since the benefits far outweighed the cost of installation. Cozens, Saville and Hillier (2005) did a document analysis of published articles on rime prevention in order to determine the effectiveness of CPTED in crime prevention. The researchers concluded that while the extra cost of integrating an enhanced security feature can be $400m the average cost of burglary to a victim can surpass $2,300. Hence, the additional expenditure to install lighting and CCTV is a worthwhile investment. Cozens, Saville and Hillier (2005) further discussed that the benefits street lighting far outweighed the initial procurement and installation cost. The researchers also concluded that natural surveillance, through self-surveillance opportunities using the windows and mechanical surveillance through CCTC and street lighting effectively reduced crime. The researchers concluded that getting it right from the outset can save future costs of managing badly designed development. For instance, ensuring safety and security with high pedestrian counts are appropriate for business as indicated by a higher turnover, rents, profits, employment and capital values. Additional evidence by earlier studies shows that early integration of physical safety in a project instead of modifying it at later stages can significantly reduce the cost of design in the long-term (Jonathan, 2009). In light of this evidence, it is argued that designers and architects should consider security attributes of natural surveillance in designing built environment at the design or planning stage. At the same time, the overall costs of incorporating territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access from the outset are relatively lower compared to the cost of using traditional approaches (Park, 2009). The 1st generation CPTED elements also lower operational costs. For instance, incorporating surveillance through effective lighting designs has been showed to substantially lower the cost of energy utility. It also lowers liability. In some cases, the whole street may have to be changed and buildings adapted to comply with a code, which may be substantially expensive (Marzbali et al., 2011). Safe and well-maintained living spaces Natural surveillance also ensures safe and well-maintained living spaces. Welsh et al. (2010) investigated the efficiency of public area surveillance in crime prevention through the use of security guards and defensible space and found that surveillance and security indicators implemented to promote defensible space share the common objective of ensuring safe and well-maintained living spaces. A related view is shared by Marzbali et al. (2011) who stated that defensible space is an approach for residential environment that inhibits crime through creation of the physical expression of social fabric. Linden’s (2007) study of situational crime prevention noted that the theory is greatly centred on territorial functioning, where territoriality comprises using physical design to inspire a sense of propriety among the legitimate users and fear among potential offenders. Hence, territoriality influences a potential offender’s behaviour by creating more risks of being caught. Human safety and security Territoriality and natural access components promote human safety and security, which are vital for successful economic growth of communities. This is since they foster safe social interactions while at the same time increase fear on the part of a potential offender by creating more risks of being caught (Queensland Government, 2007). In a pilot survey of the effectiveness of CPTED strategies in gated residential areas, Sakip and Abdullah (2012) demonstrated that the two elements promote successful communities by reducing crime rates by influencing a potential offender’s behaviour through creation of more potential of being caught. ALAC (2012) defines successful communities as places of residence work or entertainment spots where individual enjoy life under the assumption that they can do so without undue interference from issues of insecurity or crime. In a survey that explored the perceptions of burglars and planning professional on designing residential properties to prevent crime, Cozens, Hillier and Prescott (2001), noted that places that are considered and proved to be safe attract individuals, investment and activities. Based on the analysis, it can be argued that designing of the built environment and proper arrangement of territoriality and natural access can influence human behaviour and economic growth by preventing crime opportunities. In a study to examine spatial behaviour in Dutch Housings and how their arrangement affect human behaviour, Nes and Rueb (2009) established that human behaviour occurs within space while the spatial layout of an environment presents various opportunities for individuals to interact constructively and legitimately. Security risks bring fear and restrict economic activities. Hence, the interaction between the individuals within the spatial environment can promote safe or unsafe communities, which are fundamental parts of economic and social welfare. Safe design of built environments Territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access promote safe design of built environments. This is since many safe design principles enhanced through integrating the aspects of CPTED also reinforce the underlying principles of good design (ALAC, 2012). The outcomes include improved quality of both environmental and social life, both of which are prerequisite for sustainable development. In another study, Marzbali et al’s (2011) investigated the effectiveness of CPTED towards sustainable development by reducing fear of crime and found that in addition to enhancing public safety, the three elements of CPTED improve the physical attractiveness, use and attractiveness of a built environment. The researchers defined building proper design and arrangement of outdoor spacing as capable of ensuring sustainable development. Cozens (2008) studied crime prevention through environmental design in Western Australia and found that sustainable development reflects the tension between the environment and economic activities. The study concentrated on the level of crime as an indicator of sustainable development. Promoting of quality of human life Physical access control and surveillance reduce fear and crime, hence promoting the quality of human life. This is since security and sustainability are both significant factors that should be considered during the process of designing a built environment (Marzbali et al. 2011). Marzbali et al. (2011) cited a study by Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000) that examined the effectiveness of natural surveillance and natural access in reducing incidents of robberies. In the study, Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000) established that of the 16 intervention programs that surveyed, proportionate reduction in robbery incidents, by between 30 and 84 percent was witnessed. The researchers concluded that humans are components of the environment even as the environment is connected to the human health and environmental conditions. In a related study, Walker et al. (2009) cited a recent survey by the British Crime Survey (BCS), which found that the society needs to increasingly prevent fear and crime through provision of human health and safer communities. The findings of the cited study suggested that it is critical to explore methods of preventing crime if the adverse effects of criminal activities have to be prevented. Based on these deliberations, reducing crime and fear can improve the quality of human life. According to (Cozens, 2007; 2008), security and safety are inherently essential human needs. Indeed, Marzbali et al. (2011) cites Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which proposed that the basic human needs consist of five levels, where safety needs are positioned at the second level. Indeed, throughout history, man has been concerned with fortifying his security by designing structures to eliminate fears. Cozen (2008) used this perspective in explaining how territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access, through the erection of fortifications of castles, landscaping, defensive and moats in the Middle Ages, protected residents from threats in addition to providing them with security, thus enabling them to go on with their daily lives. While a range of studies have showed that the elements of 1st generation CPTED strategies have the underlying benefits in mitigating crime and reducing crime opportunities, their impact has to some extent been questionable due to several limitations that characterise that conception and implementation. Limitations of CPTED Strategies Inability to function independently Territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access control have been criticised for their incapability to function independently in influencing a potential offender’s behaviour. Linden (2007) suggested that natural surveillance only works effectively when the process of designing depends on the collaborative efforts of stakeholders, such as the community architects, environmental designers, security personnel and law enforcement officers. Linden (2007) found that leaving the community out makes natural surveillance less effective. Consistent with the findings, Cozens, Saville and Hillier (2005) conducted research document analysis on the effectiveness of CPTED in crime prevention and found that when CPTED are integrated without sufficient participation of the community, it can cause “fortress mentality, where individuals living in gated communities withdraw behind walls, fortified homes and fences. According to Cozens, Saville and Hillier (2005), such tendencies undermine the effectiveness of natural surveillance, as individuals stop becoming the “eye on the streets.”Marzbali et al. (2011) based his argument on an earlier study by (Casteel and Peek-Asa, 2000), which established that the three elements cannot be effective unless used collaboratively in influencing potential offenders’ behaviours. Deter rather than prevent crime Territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access control have also been criticised for being ineffective in preventing crime since they only serve to deter crime -- through the use of environmental design to influence human behaviour. A survey of 21st Century Security system by Atlas (2008) demonstrates that in literal terms, CPTED strategies cannot prevent offenders from committing crime since they are dependent on the physical environment, which cause the offender to make particular behavioural decisions, and the human intervention. In a related study, Cozens, Saville and Hillier (2005) did a document survey on the effectiveness of 1st generation CPTED and found that demographic dynamics and socio-economic factors also reduced their effectiveness. This is since social and cultural factors often influence the inclination for self-policing and resident action. Hence, social conditions may cause fear and reduce the tendency to intervene resulting to withdrawal of individual into their residences that become greatly fortified. According to Nes and Rueb (2009), since 1st generation CPTED elements are only designed to encourage behaviour, hence they deter, rather than prevent behaviour. Cannot influence behaviour of substance users Atlas (2008) explained that despite their extensive use, territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access cannot in reality stop criminals, specifically those who are under the influence of drugs, since they may not notice the environment surrounding them while committing a crime. According to Atlas (2008), a fence or surveillance may not pass the mind or a criminal whole under the influence of drugs. It can be argued that this is since the three elements rely on their potential to influence behaviours. Hence, since they cannot effectively influence the behaviour of offenders who are under the influence, their potential to stop criminals is hypothetical. Cozens, Saville and Hillier (2005) did a document analysis to determine the effectiveness and CPTED strategies. Their findings suggested that while mechanical surveillance systems such as CCTV could deter crime, such as burglary and car theft, because of the perceived increase in risk of detection that overshadow the perceived likely benefits, they could not prevent alcohol-related crime since “rationality” is not always present. In which case, this may undermine the effectiveness of CCTV. Territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access only serve to displace crime when they influence a potential offender’s decision. A survey of facilities that had integrated CPTED into their security strategy established that such strategies only serve to displace crime. The observation is consistent with a study by Geason and Wilson (1989) that examine the problems linked to implementing CPTED and found that if the CPTED are established to exist in a facility, offenders will move to other areas without them or worse still, commit other types of offenses. A study by Park (2009) compare it to end-text ref. examined CPTED-related issues in designing out crime in South Korea established that use of surveillance systems such as CCTVs and street lighting can be cost effective in the long-term in Korea, despite the fact that they may change the patterns of crime in due course. Linden (2007) cited a case study where CPTED result in displacement of crime. He noted that if alarms systems are installed in few homes within a block, offenders will simply move to adjoining houses with no alarm systems. Despite these observations, related empirical researches established that displacement may never be absolute and may not even have major impacts. According to Cozens (2007), CPTED can have a diffusion of benefits, where reductions of crime are witnessed in adjacent areas, where the strategies have not been implemented. A thorough investigation of this was done by Hesseling (1994), who established that of the 55 studies on such strategies, only 22 of the strategies had no evidence of displacement (six of the 22 noted diffusion of benefits) while the remaining 33 experienced crime displacement. Conclusion Since crime results from deliberate alternatives made by offenders on account of their calculation of rewards and risks, the capacity of the 1st generation CPTED elements to effectively prevent crime depends on their capacity to influence a potential offender’s behaviour. It is established that while territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access have the potential to mitigate crime, under no circumstance is the case conclusive as the elements have some shortfalls. The three have a range of benefits. First, they are effective in deterring and reducing crime and other antisocial behaviours. They also promote safety and security, which are vital for successful communities by fostering safe social interactions. They also promote safe design of built environments, which make a lot of financial sense. However, they are only effective when they get to inconvenience the legitimate users of a built environment. Next, the three must work collaboratively to effectively influence potential offender’s behaviour. Territoriality, natural surveillance and natural access have also been criticised for being ineffective in preventing crime since they only serve to deter crime through environmental design. 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: Atlas, R. (2008). 21st Century Security and CPTED: Designing for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Crime Prevention, CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Ltd. Australian institute of Technology. (2012). Crime prevention approaches, theory and mechanisms. Retrieved: 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. 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. (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., 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. Geason, S. & Wilson, P. (1989). Designing out Crime: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology Hesseling, R. (1994) Displacement: a review of the empirical literature. Crime Prevention Studies, 3, 197-230. Jonathan, J. (2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15 (4), 1-17 Letch, J. McGillin, E., Bell, J., Downing, E. & Coook, D. (2011). An Exploration of 1st And 2nd Generation CPTED For End of Year School Leavers at Rottnest Island. Originally published in the Proceedings of the 4th Australian Security and Intelligence Conference, Edith Cowan University, Perth Western Australia, 5th -7th December, 2011 Linden, R. (2007). Situational Crime Prevention: Its Role in Comprehensive Prevention Initiatives. IPC Review, 1, 139-159 Lorenc, T., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., Neary, D. et al. (2013). Environmental interventions to reduce fear of crime: systematic review of effectiveness. Systematic Reviews, 2:30 doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-30 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 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. Park, H. (2009). Designing Out Crime In South Korea: Qualitative Analysis Of Contemporary CPTED-Related Issues. Asia Pacific Journal Of Police & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 21-48 Queensland Government (2007). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design: Guidelines for Queensland. The State of Queensland. Retrieved: Roman, J. & Farrell, G. (2008). Cost-Benefit Analysis for Crime Prevention: Opportunity Costs, Routine Savings and Crime Externalities. Crime Prevention Studies, 14, pp.53-92 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), Walker, A., Flatley, J, Kershaw, C & Moon, D. (2009). Crime in England and Wales 2008/09. Findings from the British Crime Survey and police recorded crime. Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & O’Dell, S. J. (2010). Effectiveness of Public Area Surveillance for Crime Prevention: Security Guards, Place Managers and Defensible Space. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Wortley, R. and McFarlane, M. (2011). The role of territoriality in crime prevention: A field experiment. Security Journal, 24: 149-156 Read More