Advertisement

Deconstructing CPTED… and Reconstructing it for Practice, Knowledge Management and Research

  • Paul Ekblom
Article

Abstract

This paper describes the latest stage of an ongoing attempt to update and upgrade CPTED’s concepts and actions and link them more closely to developments in architecture, design and crime science. The concept of territoriality, for example, is central to the practice domain of CPTED. Yet territoriality is only vaguely defined within that domain, as are the other core concepts such as activity support and target hardening; and all of them confusingly intersect and overlap. The paper attempts a remedy by developing a suite of definitions in depth, relating the core concepts to various frameworks and discourses developed for crime prevention and design against crime, and more generally exploring ways in which CPTED could become richer and more subtle. It will also consider the ‘dark side’ of the environment, covering offenders’ countermoves to prevention and their own counter-exploitation of space, buildings and what they contain. The ultimate intention is to produce a more rigorous, yet deeper and better-integrated conception of CPTED useful for practice, research and theory alike. The paper should be considered as work in progress, indicating what might be possible and stimulating debate rather than offering a definitive resolution of the issue. Further steps are suggested and constructive contributions from readers are invited.

Keywords

Access control Activity support CPTED Crime prevention Defensible space Image and maintenance Surveillance Target-hardening Territoriality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

A version of this paper was first presented at the Crimprev workshop on Urban Criminology, Keele University, April 2009; I am grateful for EU 6th framework funding and invitation to attend by the organisers, Tim Hope and Guenter Stummvoll.

References

  1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A Pattern Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Appleton, J. (1975). The experience of place. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Ardrey, R. (1966). The territorial imperative: a personal inquiry into the animal origins of property and nations. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  4. Armitage, R. (2000). An evaluation of secured by design housing in West Yorkshire. Policing and reducing crime unit briefing note 7/00. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  5. Armitage, R. (2007). Sustainability versus safety: Confusion, conflict and contradiction in designing out crime. In G. Farrell, K. Bowers, S. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime prevention: Essays in honour of Ken Pease. Crime prevention studies 21 (pp. 81–110). Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  6. Atlas, R. (1991). The other side of defensible space. Security Management, March, 63–66.Google Scholar
  7. Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology. Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (2008). Crime pattern theory. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  9. Brantingham, P., & Faust, F. (1976). A conceptual model of crime prevention. Crime and Delinquency, 22, 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BSRIA (2010). Website www.bsria.co.uk/services/design/soft-landings/ accessed 24 October 2010. London: The Building Services Research and Information Association.
  11. CABE (2010). Post-occupancy evaluation. Website www.cabe.org.uk/sustainable-places/advice/post-occupancy-evaluation accessed 24 October 2010. London: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
  12. Clarke, R., & Eck, J. (2003). Become a problem solving crime analyst in 55 small steps. London: Jill Dando Institute, University College London.Google Scholar
  13. Clarke, R., & Newman, G. (2006). Outsmarting the Terrorists. London: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
  14. Cornish, D. (1994). The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention. In R. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, 3 (pp. 151–196). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cozens, P., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23, 328–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cropley, D., Cropley, A., Kaufman, J., & Runco, M. (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crowe, T. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design: Applications of architectural design and space management concepts (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. DCLG. (2004). Safer places: The planning system and crime prevention. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  19. Ekblom, P. (2002). From the source to the mainstream is uphill: The challenge of transferring knowledge of crime prevention through replication, innovation and anticipation. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Analysis for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies 13 (pp. 131–203). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Ekblom, P. (2004a). Shared responsibilities, pooled resources: A partnership approach to crime prevention. In P. Ekblom & A. Wyvekens (Eds.), A partnership approach to crime prevention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Ekblom, P. (2004b). Reconciling evidence of what works, knowledge of crime reduction and community safety principles, and values. Annex 2 of Safer Places: The planning system and crime prevention. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  22. Ekblom, P. (2005a). Designing products against crime. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 203–244). Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  23. Ekblom, P. (2005b). How to police the future: Scanning for scientific and technological innovations which generate potential threats and opportunities in crime, policing and crime reduction. In M. Smith & N. Tilley (Eds.), Crime science: New approaches to preventing and detecting crime. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  24. Ekblom, P. (2010a). How to understand, specify and describe the security function of a product: Towards a language and a framework for designing against crime’, International Seminar on Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (ECCA), Brisbane. Available at www.designagainstcrime.com > archive > lectures and presentations.
  25. Ekblom, P. (2010b). The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity theory. Sage Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention.Google Scholar
  26. Ekblom, P. (2011). Crime prevention, security and community safety using the 5Is framework. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ekblom, P., & Sidebottom, A. (2007). What do you mean, ‘Is it secure?’ Redesigning language to be fit for the task of assessing the security of domestic and personal electronic goods. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 14, 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.), The Reasoning Criminal (pp. 119–128). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Felson, M. (2003). The process of co-offending. In M. Smith & D. Cornish (Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention, Crime Prevention Studies 16. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  30. Fisher, B., & Nasar, J. (1992). Fear of crime in relation to three exterior site features: prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gamman, L. & Pascoe, T. (Eds) (2004). Seeing is believing, special issue of Crime Prevention and Community Safety Journal, 6/4.Google Scholar
  32. Gamman, L. & Raein, M. (2000). Reviewing the art of crime: What, if anything, do criminals and artists/designers have in common? In: D. Cropley, A. Cropley, J. Kaufman and M. Runco (2010). The Dark Side of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  34. Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. revised 1977.Google Scholar
  35. Jongejans, A. (2010). The Dutch ‘Police label secure housing’: A successful approach. Internal Security, 147–170. Szczytno, Poland: Higher Police School. http://internalsecurity.wspol.eu/free-sample/the-dutch-police-label-secure-housing-a-successful-approach
  36. Kintrea, K., Bannister, J., Pickering, J., Reid, M., & Suzuki, N. (2008). ‘It's an area – we all represent it': Young people and territoriality in British cities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Merry, S. (1981). Defensible space undefended: social factors in crime prevention through environmental design. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 16, 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. Painter, K., & Farrington, D. (1997). The crime reducing effect of improved lighting: The Dudley project. In R. Clarke (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed.). Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  40. Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy. A realist perspective. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Poyner, B. (1983). Designing against crime: Beyond defensible space. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  43. Roach, J., Ekblom, P., & Flynn, R. (2005). The Conjunction of Terrorist Opportunity: a framework for diagnosing and preventing acts of terrorism. Security Journal, 18, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saville, G., & Cleveland, G. (2003a). An introduction to 2nd Generation CPTED: Part 1. CPTED Perspectives, 6(1), 7–9.Google Scholar
  45. Saville, G., & Cleveland, G. (2003b). An introduction to 2nd Generation CPTED: Part 2. CPTED Perspectives, 6(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  46. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space. The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Tilley, N. (1993). After Kirkholt: Theory, methods and results of replication evaluations. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 47. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  48. Whitehead, S., Mailley, J., Storer, I., McCardle, J., Torrens, G., & Farrell, G. (2008). IN SAFE HANDS: a review of mobile phone anti-theft designs. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 14, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows. The police and neighbourhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 3(2), 29–38.Google Scholar
  50. Wortley, R. (1996). Guilt, shame and situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 5, 115–132.Google Scholar
  51. Wortley, R. (2008). Situational precipitators of crime. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  52. Wortley, R., & McFarlane, M. (2010). The role of territoriality in crime prevention: A field experiment. Security Journal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Design Against Crime Research Centre, Central Saint Martins College of Art and DesignUniversity of the Arts LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations