eBook - ePub
Crime Prevention through Housing Design
Policy and Practice
R. Armitage
This is a test
Share book
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Crime Prevention through Housing Design
Policy and Practice
R. Armitage
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
This book presents a comprehensive review of the impact of residential design on crime focusing upon research, policy and practice both in the UK and internationally, appealing to both academics and practitioners within the fields of crime prevention, urban planning and architecture.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoās features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youāll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weāve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Crime Prevention through Housing Design an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Crime Prevention through Housing Design by R. Armitage in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Design & Design General. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
Topic
DesignSubtopic
Design GeneralPart I
Reducing Residential Crime through Design ā Theory, Policy and Practice
1
Exploring the Theoretical Links between Design and Crime
Introduction
This chapter explores the theoretical links between design and crime and the emergence of a design based approach as a practical intervention widely implemented by police forces and local authorities. Whilst the recognition that the environment can influence behaviour has been explored for decades, specific reference to the potential to reduce crime through the design and manipulation of the physical environment only began to transcend the fields of geography and architecture in the second half of the twentieth century. Specific methods of applying these principles in practice increased in popularity in the late 1990s through the emphasis placed upon multi-agency crime reduction and the demonstration that interventions to block criminal opportunities can act as effective crime reduction measures. This chapter explores the emergence of new opportunity theories such as rational choice theory, routine activity theory and crime pattern theory, and the impact which these theories had upon practical interventions to reduce crime. The recognition that crime is not inevitable, that criminal opportunities can be blocked and that the responsibility for this does not lie entirely with the police created an environment in which crime prevention approaches such as situational crime prevention (SCP) and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) could flourish. This chapter outlines the basic principles of these approaches and concludes by presenting an updated set of CPTED principles.
The responsibility for crime reduction
The last three decades have seen a major change in the perception of how crime reduction (in crime in England and Wales) should be achieved. This change can be characterised as having two primary facets, which are closely linked. The first is the advance of SCP, following the demonstration that crime trends are more readily understood in terms of the supply of crime opportunities than the distribution of criminal propensity across the population (Mayhew et al., 1976; Felson, 1998; Felson and Clarke, 1998). This insight has been reinforced by the demonstration that the regulation of these opportunities will impact on rates of crime (Clarke, 1992). The doctrine of SCP, and the contributions which diverse applied sciences can make to the discipline of crime reduction, has been exemplified by the founding of the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science at University College London. Crime science, as Laycock (2001) suggests, involves the application of scientific principles to the reduction of crime. It is outcome focused, evidence based and aims to enhance the knowledge of crime and its control through the engagement of academics from a variety of disciplines.
The second aspect of the change in the perception of crime reduction flows from the first, but in fact developed alongside it, with its first expression being found in the Morgan Report of 1991 (Home Office, 1991). This is the recognition that the supply of crime opportunities is under the control of agencies other than the police, such that the historic reliance upon the police as the primary crime reduction functionaries was misguided, and certainly unfair.
The domain of crime reduction historically comprised its detection (for which responsibility predominantly lay with the police), the apprehension and incapacitation of offenders following detection and the prevention of recidivism (which involves agencies such as the police, the prison and probation services as well as the judiciary). These traditional responses focused upon offenders rather than the supply of criminal opportunities and were predominantly reactive in nature. Intervention prior to a crime taking place has historically taken a back seat to detection and apprehension. Although the prevention of crime was the principal duty of the police service when it was first established in 1829, in reality this role involved prevention through the targeting of high crime areas and of particular individuals and groups, rather than by arranging the environment so that crime opportunities were limited (Hughes, 1998). It was in the period following World War II that some police officers came to be designated as having a special responsibility for crime reduction, specifically following the recommendation by the Cornish Committee on the Prevention and Detection of Crime (1965) that an officer of at least Inspector rank should be designated force crime prevention officer. However, even with this recognition, those responsible for crime prevention have never represented more than a small minority within the police service, with this position being viewed as one of low status and low interest when compared to those involving detection or apprehension (Graef, 1989). As Weatheritt (1986) suggests, the role of crime reduction officer is often viewed as one in which pre-retirement officers serve out their time:
Until recently, when the figure has fallen to about fifteen years, the average length of service of constables and sergeants attending the basic training course for newly appointed crime prevention officers at the Crime Prevention Centre was twenty years, just five years short of the period at which police officers become eligible for pensionable retirement on half pay.
Weatheritt (1986, p. 49ā50)
The number of police officers designated as responsible for crime reduction is, although interesting, a side issue. The real change came with the assumption of responsibility for crime reduction of those outside the police service, a recognition which saw relevant authorities becoming responsible for considering the crime and disorder implications of every decision that they made, be that awarding planning permission to a new nightclub or the decision not to install street lighting within a high crime area. The Crime and Disorder Act (1998), in particular Section 17, recognised that those who supply criminal opportunities can and should be responsible for their control. Section 17 of the Act placed a responsibility upon relevant authorities to consider the crime and disorder implications of every decision that they make, stating that āit shall be the duty of each authority . . . to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of those functions on . . . crime and disorder in its areaā (Great Britain, 1998). Responsible authorities were originally defined as local authorities, joint authorities, the national park authority, broads authorities and the police. This was extended in 2002 to include primary care trusts, and in 2003 to include fire and police authorities. This section of the Act requires a variety of agencies, which may never have been concerned with crime and its prevention, to consider crime and disorder in every decision that they make. Moss and Pease (1999) suggest that ā . . . it is difficult to conceive of any decision which will remain untouched by s 17 considerationsā (p. 16), and provide examples of decisions which may be influenced by this legislation. These include granting planning permission to a new housing estate and the extent to which those homes are built to the SBD standard, local authority policies relating to the repair of council homes which have been burgled, or a councilās failure to upgrade street lighting within a residential area; all of which could result in legal action against the local authority for failing to consider the crime implications of their decisions and actions.
Whilst crime reduction, and specifically the reduction of crime through the design and manipulation of the environment, had been considered both in theory and in practice prior to these legislative changes, the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) represented an opportunity for many different agencies to explore multi-agency approaches to reducing crime and to think outside of what might be referred to as traditional interventions. Reducing crime through design was one approach which fulfilled these criteria, and the post-1998 period saw an increase in the application of its principles in practice, as well as an increase in research to enhance this application.
Reducing crime through design
The recognition that the environment can influence behaviour dates back thousands of years, but the formal study of the geography or pattern of socio-economic variables (and the social problems associated with these) began largely with the University of Chicago School of Sociology in the 1920s and 1930s (Burgess, 1916, Park et al., 1925). Although the geography of social problems such as unemployment, delinquency and deprivation had been researched long before, specific reference to the potential to reduce crime through the design or manipulation of the environment began in the 1960s and 1970s with research conducted by authors such as Wood (1961), Jacobs (1961), Angel (1968), Jeffery (1971) and Newman (1973).
In the early 1960s the American sociologist Elizabeth Wood focused on the micro-environment of blocks of public housing in the United States (Wood, 1961). Her starting point was the concept that housing projects can never employ enough police officers, caretakers, service engineers and other guardians to prevent crime from taking place. She emphasised the need for managers to work closely with residents and concentrated her thoughts on physical improvements to the redesign of public and semi-public spaces that should become places of leisure, thereby improving visibility. Examples included recommending that childrenās playgrounds and seating areas for adults should be placed so that they are visible from the surrounding houses.
Far ahead of her time, Wood focused on teenagers. She based her ideas about youngsters on the assumption that because of the lack of good recreational areas, young people have little choice but to act antisocially. Her solution was to provide more facilities, but to ensure that these were vandal-proof. She also proposed the idea of appointing one of the tenants of a block of flats as caretaker. This person would then be responsible for forming a link between housing management and the residents and initiating and coordinating the activities of the residents.
Although based largely upon her observations of urban planning, as opposed to examining actual patterns of crime, Jane Jacobsā (1961) work has been highly influential within the fields of urban design, planning and designing out crime. Jacobs raised many issues which are still debated decades later and these relate to both planning policy and practice. Jacobs argued that design should not be paternalistic and planners must not assume that they know what residents want. She also recommended that there should be a clear demarcation between public and private space (and the function of that space) as a means of promoting a sense of ownership amongst residents. Jacobs also introduced the concept of āeyes on the streetā and argued that not only should buildings be oriented towards the street (to increase the level of natural surveillance), but also that streets should be used as continuously as possible, thus bringing more people (and surveillance) to the area.
The debates surrounding the issues of natural surveillance and mixed land use will be discussed in more detail later in the book, particularly those relating to through movement and connectivity. However, it is worth highlighting two key limitations of Jacobsā theory. The first is that the crux of Jacobsā theory relates to the trust that those using the street (be they shopkeepers, residents or passers-by) would intervene should a crime occur. However, it cannot be assumed that residents and passers-by will notice a crime taking place (Gelfand et al., 1973; Mayhew et al., 1979) and if they do, it cannot be assumed that they will intervene (Rosenthal, 1964; Latane and Darley, 1970).
The second criticism, which is raised by Jacobs herself throughout her work, is that her theories relate to cities and were never intended to be translated to towns, suburbs or smaller developments:
I hope no reader will try to transfer my observations into guides as to what goes on in towns, or little cities, or in suburbs which still are suburban. Towns, suburbs, and even little cities are totally different organisms from great cities . . . To try to understand towns in terms of big cities will only compound confusion.
Jacobs (1961, p. 26)
As Jacobs (1961) points out, many people choose to live in cities for the very reasons which make them different from towns or suburban areas ā such as flexibility, mobility and relative anonymity. For these reasons, the dynamics of those living and working within a city will not necessarily translate to suburban areas.
C. Ray Jeffery coined the phrase ācrime prevention through environmental designā in his 1971 book of the same title. Jeffery was disillusioned with the ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system and was searching for a new theory of crime prevention based upon the relationship between humans and their environment. Drawing upon a biosocial theory of learning, he argued that crime prevention must take into account the effects of the environment upon human behaviour as well as the genetic predisposition towards criminal activity. As Clarke states, āJefferyās general theory of criminal behaviour has enjoyed less support than his concept of CPTEDā (Clarke, 1992, p. 6) and the term CPTED has influenced both theory and intervention since its inception.
Oscar Newmanās work (1973) played a large part in the development of designing out crime, and the principles introduced by Newman can be seen in many modern crime reduction theories and interventions. In his book Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design (1973) Oscar Newman set out his theories based on an analysis of detailed statistics on the physical form of housing in New York, including a profile of the residents and recorded incidents of crime in housing owned by the New York Housing Authority. His study produced some interesting findings which are presented in detail in later chapters. These include the findings that:
ā¢ The lowest recorded crime rates occurred in the three-storey buildings, whereas buildings higher than six storeys and developments larger than 1000 dwellings suffered significantly higher crime rates.
ā¢ In high-rise buildings, a higher proportion of crime takes place in the interior of public spaces than in similar areas in low-rise housing. Newman pointed out that whilst high-rise can be successful for higher income households with few children, and when protected by permanent security devices and concierge staff, it generally does not work for general use.
Newmanās central concept was defensible space, which has four main design elements:
Territoriality: With the use of real or symbolic barriers, residential environments can be subdivided into zones that are manageable for the residents through their adoption of space as ātheir territoryā. The transition from private (easily manageable) to public (difficult to manage) space is important and to achieve this:
ā¢ All spaces both outside and inside buildings should as far as possible be under the control or the influence of the residents.
ā¢ External spaces should be seen to be clearly private or semi-private when viewed from public streets and footpaths. Walls, fences and gates clearly define territoriality, but symbolic devices may also be used, such as changes of level, steps, gateways or portals.
ā¢ In higher density developments, common staircases should serve as small a number of residential units as possible so that residents recognise each other, and more importantly, recognise intruders.
ā¢ External communal areas ā such as play areas, drying greens and parking ā should, where possible, be accessible from and in close proximity to the entrances of buildings or be entered from the private domain.
Surveillance: Residents must be able to survey what is happening in and around public spaces inside and outside the buildings. To achieve this:
ā¢ Windows should be positioned not just to suit the internal plan of a house, but to survey public spaces, both external and internal within the scheme.
ā¢ Gable ends of terraced housing should have windows to overlook adjoining streets or open space.
ā¢ Front entrances to buildings should face on to streets so that passing pedestrians and motorists can observe the surrounding areas.
ā¢ It is preferable if all common areas within buildings ā staircases, lift lobbies and landings ā are visible from the street outside the building; where regulations permit, they should also be overlooked by windows from the dwelling units.
ā¢ Fire-escape stairs should be located on the outside of buildings, be glazed and discharge any users to the front of the buildings.
Building Image: Newman argued that the proper use of materials and good architectural design can prevent residents from feeling stigmatised, which can in turn lead to a feeling of isolation. Practical solutions include:
ā¢ Avoiding building forms and layout which stand out as completely different, since they draw specific attention to the project.
ā¢ Retaining the streets, rather than closing them off, in very large redevelopment projects where there is an existing grid of streets. This will help the scheme avoid appearing to be totally different and will maintain street surveillance.
ā¢ Not letting high-rise/high density housing blocks to low-income residents as they are particularly vulnerable to crime.
ā¢ Ensuring that finishes and furnishings in interior spaces are robust, yet attractive to residents. Institutional hard materials, which could be vandalised, may encourage an urge to test their destructibility.
Juxtaposition of residential areas with other facilities: Newman argued that housing should be mixed with commercial and social facilities as this helps improve security in an area. He also emphasised that parks and playgrounds should be overlooked by housing to maximise natural surveillance.
Authors such as Mawby (1977), Bottoms (1974), Wilson (1978) and Merry (1981) have cri...