Abstract
In order to address crime, it is popular to use situational crime prevention with its focus on immediate opportunities for offending. If targets become less suitable and if capable guardians are present, then crime is less likely to take place in the here and the now. This logic often translates into placing greater distance between targets and motivated offenders. For industrial security, this comes down to deterring, denying, detecting and delaying (“the four D’s”) any type of intrusion in order to protect assets. For public security, this comes down to surveillance, access control, territoriality, maintenance and activity support in order to prevent crime. While considering public security, this article will reflect on the possibilities of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Notes
As the Foxconn scandal demonstrates this logic is omnipresent:
Retrieved November 11, 2020 from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract.
Instead of addressing the root causes of suicide among employees, the company focused only on the how of the matter by placing safety nets between buildings so the fall of those in the act of committing suicide would break. It is questionable whether the suicidal actors lived happily ever after because nothing had been done regarding motivation such as improving working conditions and/or increasing pay.
Moreover, cultural criminologists (Hayward, 2007, 2012) would argue nuisance and vandalism are very different from instrumental crime and therefore ill-suited to address via target hardening with its overtly rational assumptions (Mayhew, 1988). Those who commit expressive crime are said to be in an emotional state (be it fear, anger, boredom, excitement) without considering a cost-benefit equation in advance. Nonetheless, Yar (2017: 413) argues, “by adopting a more capacious conception of rationality (which includes aesthetic and affective dimensions), the apparent dualism between ‘instrumental’ and ‘expressive motivations’ can be significantly overcome.”
On a personal note I experienced these mechanisms first-hand when I bought my very first house. The house in question was located in a nice suburban area with friendly locals. Even without a known criminal disposition, my soon-to-be neighbors were guilty of trespassing and theft as they stole bricks from the backyard of my recently purchased house, which had been abandoned for months since the previous owner had left. In and around the house there was no activity whatsoever. In addition to the lack of surveillance, there was a serious lack of access control and territoriality because the previous owner had removed the fence around the backyard. Furthermore the deteriorated garden had maintenance issues; numerous bricks had already been removed and this signaled the remaining ones were apparently up for grabs.
“Wees Waaks” is an excellent example of reinforcing territory through promoting dog ownership; police officers and civil servants would enroll local dog owners to patrol certain hotspots by offering maps and dog biscuits. Not only would the dogs mark their territory via public urination but so would the dog owners by reporting suspicious behavior.
It is possible to benefit from this and this is why retail stores leave their lights on after business hours. It will create natural surveillance; if a burglar manages to enter a store it is easy for people on the outside to notice a presence on the inside.
Escape routes in the case of an emergency are one way to exemplify this. An easy way out could potentially save the lives of legitimate users (or potential offenders) whenever a crisis or disaster might occur. This is a huge dilemma when it comes to emergency exits. In prison the different meanings of escape can have very tragic consequences as illustrated by the Schiphol prison fire in 2005 where the emphasis was too much on security and less so on safety: Retrieved November 11, 2020 from.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/28/lukeharding.mainsection.
With facial recognition it becomes possible to track, monitor and manipulate citizens on a vast scale. The Social Credit System as rolled out in some parts of China can serve as a warning about the ominous applications of mechanical surveillance: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained.
The redevelopment of Times Square in New York City is the paradigmatic case illustrating how crime prevention is linked to the built environment. The Deuce was formerly known for its gritty underworld of pimps, prostitutes and gangsters and has now turned into a public spectacle for tourists.
I realize the categories of “crime” and “city” are theorized in a rather general way. If one were to accurately investigate specific settings conducive to specific crimes it would become apparent that diversity and density are not always in the interest of crime prevention as diversity could lead to conflict between groups and density could promote a crime like pickpocketing. Thanks to the anonymous reviewer who pointed this out to me.
There are for instance limits to discouraging misbehavior in public restrooms, without giving up a necessary degree of privacy which is also necessary for authorized behavior. The iconic example of encouraging behavior rather than discouraging behavior would be the urinal fly which reduces cleaning costs because users want to aim at the fly. This proves much more effective than putting out prohibition signs and catching violators in the act.
Although it could be argued that the wider political-economy and socio-cultural life is making people more competitive, individualistic, selfish and less oriented towards the public good (Winlow & Hall, 2013), I would argue it is through first-hand experiences that people will eventually overcome stereotypes and tribalism (Sennet, 2012).
References
ASIS International. (2018). Protection of assets manual. Security management. ASIS International.
Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. (1978). An aesthetic theory of vandalism. Crime & Delinquency, 24, 309–321.
Armitage, C. J., & Ekblom, P. (2019). Rebuilding crime prevention through environmental design: Strengthening the links with crime science. Routledge.
Blokland, T. (2003). Urban bonds. Polity Press.
Branic, N., & Kubrin, C. E. (2018). Gated communities and crime in the United States. In G. Bruinsma, & S. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental criminology (pp. 405–427). Oxford University Press.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 3, 5–26.
Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203–220.
Buck, A. J., Hakim, S., & Rengert, G. F. (1993). Burglar alarms and the choice behavior of burglars: A suburban phenomenon. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(5), 497–507.
Ceccato, V., & Nalla, M. K. (2020). Crime and fear in public places: Towards safe, inclusive and sustainable cities. Taylor & Francis Group.
Clarke, R. V. G. (1980). “Situational” crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 136–147.
Clarke, R. V. G. (2004). Technology, criminology and crime science. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 55–63.
Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (1993). Routine activity and rational choice: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 5). New Brunswick.
Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment and classification. Polity Press.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Colquhoun, I. (2004). Design out crime. Creating safe and sustainable communities. Elsevier.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. G. (2006). The rational choice perspective. In S. Henry, & M. Lanier (Eds.), The essential criminology reader (pp. 18–29). Westview.
Cozens, P., & Love, T. (2015). A review and current status of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 393–412.
Crawford, A. (1998). Crime prevention and community safety. Longman.
Crowe, T. D. (1991). Crime prevention through environmental design. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Downes, D., & Rock, P. (2007). Understanding deviance. Oxford University Press.
Durkheim, É. (1950). The rules of sociological method. Free Press.
Eck, J. E. (1994). Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Maryland, College Park.
Ellickson, R. (1996). Controlling chronic misconduct in city spaces. Yale Law Journal, 105(5), 1165–1248.
Ekblom, P. (2011). Deconstructing CPTED… and reconstructing it for practice, knowledge management and research. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(1), 7–28.
Ekblom, P. (2013). Designing products against crime. In R. Wortley (Ed.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 195–220). Taylor and Francis.
Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2006). What have criminologists done for us lately?. In M. Gill (Ed.), The Handbook of security (pp. 65–88). Macmillan.
Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.
Felson, M. (2000). The routine activity approach as a general crime theory. In S. Simpson (Ed.), Of crime and criminality (pp. 205–216). Pine Forge Press.
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population. Palgrave.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford University Press.
Gooren, J. (2019). The embracement of risks. How to make sense of ‘resilience’ for safety and security management? Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 11, 115–132.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (2019). Modern control theory and the limits of criminal justice. Oxford University Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Hakim, S., & Rengert, G. (1981). Crime spillover. Sage.
Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities. Verso.
Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Social Policy and Administration, 41(3), 232–250.
Hayward, K. (2012). Five spaces of cultural criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 441–462.
Hospers, G. J. (2009). Lynch, Urry and city marketing: Taking advantage of the city as a built and graphic image. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(3), 226–233.
IFPO. (2010). The professional protection officer. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Iqbal, A., & Ceccato, V. (2016). Is CPTED useful to guide the inventory of safety in parks? A study case in Stockholm, Sweden. International Criminal Justice Review, 26(2), 150–168.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Sage.
Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (1998). Private security and public policing. Clarendon Press.
Kindynis, T. (2019). Persuasion architectures: Consumer spaces, affective engineering and (criminal) harm, Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 19–638.
Lasley, J. R. (1998). “Designing out” gang homicides and street assaults. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice.
Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. In E. Kofman (Ed.), Writings on cities (pp. 147–159). Wiley-Blackwell.
Little, C. (2015). The ‘Mosquito’ and the transformation of British public space. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(2), 167–182.
Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2001). Policing as a public good: Reconstituting the connections between policing and the state. Theoretical Criminology, 5(1), 9–35.
Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm. Exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. Aldine Transaction.
Luten, I. (2008). Handboek Veilig Ontwerp en Beheer. Sociale veiligheid in buitenruimten, gebouwen en woningen. Uitgeverij THOTH.
Mayhew, P. (1988). Target-Hardening: How much of an answer?. In R. V. G. Clarke, & T. Hope (Eds.), Coping with burglary (pp. 29–44). Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Mihinjac, M., & Saville, S. (2019). Third-generation crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Social Sciences, 8(6), 1–20.
Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space? Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108–133.
Moran, L., Skeggs, B., Tyrer, P., & Corteen, K. (2000). Property, boundary, exclusion. Social and Cultural Geography, 2(4), 407–420.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Macmillan.
Raymen, T. (2016). Designing-in crime by designing-out the social? situational crime prevention and the intensification of harmful subjectivities. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(3), 497–514.
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Shaffer, G. S., & Anderson, L. M. (1983). Perception of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 95, 311–323.
Schuilenburg, M., & Peeters, R. (2018). Smart cities and the architecture of security: Pastoral power and the scripted design of public space. City Territory and Architecture, 13(5), 1–9.
Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. Penguin Books.
Sennett, R. (2018). Building and dwelling. Ethics for the city. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
Shearing, C., & Stenning, P. (1983). Private security: Implications for social control. Social Problems, 30(5), 493–506.
Sorkin, M. (1992). See you in Disneyland. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a theme park: The new American city and the end of public space (pp. 205–232). Hill and Wang.
Stuart, F. (2016). Down, out, and under arrest: Policing and everyday life in Skid Row. University of Chicago Press.
Valier, C. (2002). Theories of crime and punishment. Longman.
Wacquant, L. (2001). Deadly symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh. Punishment and Society, 3(1), 95–134.
Walsh, C. (2008). The mosquito: A repellent response. Youth Justice, 8(2), 122–133.
Weicher, J. C. (1973). A test of Jane Jacob’s theory of successful neighborhoods. Journal of Regional Science, 13(1), 29–40.
Wikström, P. O., Ceccato, V., Hardie, B., & Treiber, K. (2010). Activity fields and the dynamics of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(1), 55–87.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighbourhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, March, 29–38.
Winlow, S., & Hall, S. (2013). Rethinking social exclusion: The end of the social?. Sage Publications.
Wortley, R., & Townsley, M. (2016). Environmental criminology. Taylor & Francis.
Yar, M. (2017). Toward a cultural criminology of the internet. In K. F. Steinmetz, & M. R. Nobles (Eds.), Technocrime and criminological theory (pp. 116–132). Routledge.
Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society. Sage.
Zedner, L. (2009). Security. Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declares that there are no conflict of interests and no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gooren, J. The logic of CPTED for public space or the social potential of physical security. Crime Law Soc Change 79, 417–436 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-022-10058-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-022-10058-7