Introduction

Crime poses a significant challenge to society, both from an economic and a social standpoint. The prevalence of crime is closely connected to people, and places where people commit crimes; architecture, functionality, and human activities all influence crime. “Crime is influenced by the built environment” (MacDonald 2015, p. 33). Whether we aim to understand why an individual resorts to criminal activity in a particular setting (e.g. Wikström, 2023) or wish to investigate ways to deter crime by modifying environmental conditions (e.g. Clarke 1995), it is clear that the environment plays a crucial role in the occurrence of crime. If the environment is important, why do we not pay more attention to the shapers of the environment? Despite the evidence supporting the impact of the built environment on crime, policymakers, and urban development stakeholders often overlook or inadequately integrate crime prevention strategies into urban planning (Armitage 2013; Cozens et al. 2005). This lack of engagement is evident in the limited training provided for built environment professionals concentrating on crime reduction principles in urban projects. Addressing this gap requires a concerted effort to educate and engage these professionals in planning and creating safer urban environments.

Architects, urban planners, designers, and engineers—the “built environment professionals”—have many roles, including the power to affect how the urban environment is shaped, therefore, indirectly affecting crime. Their responsibilities are diverse and interdisciplinary, involving the strategic use of land and resources to meet social, economic, environmental, and aesthetic goals. From a crime and safety perspective, they have two clear windows of action. First, they shape an area while it is being planned or built; they can “think situationally” and “build in” safe features. However, in practice, their effectiveness in shaping plans often hinges on their ability or political influence when it comes to prioritising one interest over another when conflicting objectives are in play. Safe features can be included in the design for an area from the onset, for example, by planning the location and design of buildings based on evidence from research shown to minimise crime. Second, built environment professionals are also called to modify problem areas to reduce crime and increase safety often with situational crime prevention (e.g. Clarke 1995; Loukaitou-Sideris and Eck 2007). In many communities, but not all, built environment professionals, safety experts, and police collaborate on knowledge-based tasks aimed at the long-term governance of safety. This is often for a specific problem. Fewer communities use such an approach for all problem areas; similarly some, but not all, strive to make urban areas welcoming, diminishing the social disparities and going beyond gender-neutral policies and other urban sustainability goals. Urban sustainability can be understood as the process of integration of environmental, social, and economic factors to create urban spaces that are safe, resilient, and capable of sustaining their functionality over time (e.g. see UNODC 2020). Yet, although these aspects are important for urban sustainability, they constitute only one of many interests in the competition for attention in the planning process.

Given the impact of crime on societies and the importance of built environment professionals in preventing crime, we wonder why architects, urban planners, designers, and engineers commonly disregard crime-related issues in their decision-making frameworks. These frameworks include urban planning guidelines, architectural design principles, and engineering standards. Studies suggest that the integration of crime prevention strategies is not very prevalent in the building process (e.g. Paulsen, 2013). On a similar note, why do safety experts underestimate the role of built environment professionals ("the shapers") in affecting the urban environment?

The answer to the first question might simply be a matter of the reality of the complex planning process in the real world. However, it can also be a lack of intentional actions toward a more sustainable urban environment in which crime and safety constitute a relevant dimension. We explore the reasons why safety experts frequently undervalue the importance of urban planning, recognising the demands faced by them in this realm. This perspective distances itself from unrealistic expectations that planners can completely disregard the pressures influencing their decisions.

Therefore, this study aims to investigate the disconnection between urban planning and crime prevention, with a particular focus on situational crime prevention. In order to achieve this aim, we will:

  1. (1)

    start reviewing the roles of architects, urban planners, designers, and engineers in shaping urban environments and how these roles can influence crime and safety;

  2. (2)

    explore possible reasons for the lack of integration between built environment professionals and crime prevention experts, including safety experts and the police;

  3. (3)

    present findings from a survey conducted in Sweden, highlighting the perspectives of urban planners and safety experts on integrating crime prevention into urban planning; and

  4. (4)

    propose strategies to bridge the gap between urban planning and crime prevention, with the goal of fostering safer, more livable cities through collaborative interdisciplinary efforts, and improved communication.

Although this article highlights the urgency for debate in this area, the disjunction between the environmental criminology research community and urban design professionals is not new and has already been recognised elsewhere for at least four decades (Andresen and Hodgkinson 2021; Atlas 2013; Brantingham 1989; Paulsen 2013; Rohe et al. 2001; Saville and Mihinjac 2022). The point has often been made that the environmental criminological community has been slow to reach out beyond their siloed academic circles into the practical world of urban planning, except for a few occasions, for instance Wartell and Gallagher (2012). The urgency now comes partially from the fact that the United Nations recently forecast that by the year 2050, cities will house 68 per cent of the global population.

Currently, there are about 35 cities with more than 10 million inhabitants or more worldwide, and the majority are located in countries of the Global South. Reducing crime and improving safety is an important dimension of social sustainability, as many of these megacities suffer from social problems, particularly from crime and unequal victimisation (Whitzman 2005). These issues are particularly important for the field of environmental criminology as the field focuses on understanding the spatial and temporal patterns of criminal activity with an emphasis on the ways in which crime can be prevented or mitigated by altering the environment (Rodriguez-Spahia and Barberet 2020). Thus, environmental criminology has a vital role in contributing to social sustainability (see in particular Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11), Sustainable Cities and Communities, and the New Urban Agenda (UNGA 2016), much of which is reflected in the policy and programmatic work of UN-Habitat and relevant partners, such as UNODC and UN Women. These documents also underscore the urgency of addressing crime and safety issues in rapidly growing urban areas, a key aspect of urban sustainability intertwined with climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts for resilient cities. The disconnection between researchers, in particular in environmental criminology, and practitioners in the area of safety, and built environment professionals constitutes a barrier to dealing with these challenges. There have also been calls for better integration of academic and practical knowledge in relation to the current and future impact of climate change. Research has shown examples of how adapting the built environment to climate change challenges may inadvertently affect vulnerability to crime or crime prevention (Chamard 2023; Pease and Farrell 2011).

While we recognise that Sweden’s example may not be universally applicable, we argue that it makes for an interesting case study when it comes to understanding the disconnection between crime prevention and frameworks employed by built environment professions. Despite its low population density and regional economic disparities, Sweden has a long local planning tradition and has developed targeted crime prevention measures adaptable to various contexts over the last two decades (Ministry Justice 1996; Regeringen 2021, 2023). The involvement of the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket) on crime and safety issues demonstrates the importance of national-level support, which can inspire similar frameworks internationally (Ceccato et al. 2019). Moreover, Sweden’s recent wave of lethal violence highlights current challenges in urban safety, underscoring the need for effective collaboration between urban planners and safety experts in order to address evolving crime patterns. We hope that learning from Sweden’s response to these challenges can provide lessons for other countries.

The article is composed of four sections: the background discussion of the main concepts, followed by the research design and results, and finally, the discussion of the results, conclusions, and recommendations.

Background

The shapers and other actors that create the environment

Over three decades ago, Patricia Brantingham highlighted the link between a city’s physical layout and its residents’ experiences, emphasising how urban design influences what people see, how they navigate, and their risk of becoming crime victims:

Those who shape cities shape where people go, how they get there, and what they remember about the places they go. The “shapers” help shape the awareness space of everyone including individuals that commit crimes, who tend to pick targets from within their own awareness spaces (Brantingham 1989).

Brantingham explicitly indicated that those responsible for urban planning and design directly influence the movement and experience of individuals, and even the choices of criminals, who often operate within familiar territories. We are the agents in our own microenvironments, but who are the shapers/agents of the larger environment that we must use but cannot control except by avoidance? And we cannot always avoid a place. For example, we cannot control a problematic metro station that we must use to commute to work or a risky entrance to the apartment in which we live. Yet, we cannot be the agents of control.

The term “shapers” encompasses a broad range of individuals and entities involved in creating urban environments. These shapers also affect a city’s governance, and social, economic, and environmental dynamics, including safety aspects. Some of these actors are more obvious than others. The influence of these actors or “shapers” can vary, with some having specific windows of opportunity to affect the urban environment, while others exert a long-term impact in setting policies and priorities as well as setting budgets. Shapers can act at different levels, from supranational, national to regional, and local levels. Organisations like the United Nations through the UN-Habitat or Safer City Programme (UN 2015) or the European Union can influence cities not only through regulations and international agreements but also through policies and large-scale infrastructure projects; see, for example EU (2019). At the national level, policies and funding decisions shape urban development, housing, transportation, and public services (e.g. Regeringen 2023). At the same time, regional and local governments help manage urban areas, implementing policies and programmes tailored to regional and local needs. Entities like established institutions and infrastructure developers have a lasting impact because they can be responsible for setting long-term policies, priorities, and budgets that shape the local trajectory over decades. Some shapers have limited windows of opportunity, such as politicians with fixed terms or temporary funding programmes. Their impact might be immediate but short-lived, while citizen engagement in community initiatives can affect the area for a longer time (e.g. Mihinjac and Saville 2020). Table 1 illustrates how shapers affect city dynamics through governance at various levels, social structures, economic conditions and environmental factors.

Table 1 The ways “shapers” can affect city dynamics
Full size table

Changing the urban environment starts directly with those who affect the environment with their daily activities by designing or approving details of the structure of building (building and fire code regulations as well as disability access), as well as those who do similar detailed work for the type and design of streets and bridges and the composition of these elements. That means there are architects, civil engineers, urban designers, and planners in municipalities who play a central role in shaping urban environments, from zoning and land use to infrastructure integration. Civil engineers, together with urban planners, specifically craft the city’s physical framework, such as roads, bridges, and public transit systems, impacting how easily everybody can get around, including how fast police and emergency services can navigate and respond. Their choices influence social dynamics, traffic flows, and area accessibility, which can in turn affect crime levels and safety perceptions in a particular area. Architects design buildings and public spaces, where aspects such as visibility, lighting, and access control can either prevent or encourage criminal activities. Their work directly influences our interaction with spaces and other users of the space. They affect people’s routine activity, as suggested Brantingham and Brantingham (1995):

...home, parks, factories, transport systems...the ways in which we assemble these large building blocks into the urban cloth have an enormous impact on our fear levels and on the quantities, types and timing of crimes we suffer (Brantingham and Brantingham 1995).

While architects and urban planners are responsible for the design of buildings and urban spaces, Sampson et al. (2010) call for the recognition of other actors, the “supercontrollers”. Supercontrollers are people, institutions, and organisations that create incentives for controllers to prevent or facilitate crime. They do not have direct control to prevent crime but have indirect influence through handlers, guardians, and managers. Handlers, such as family members or educators, shape the actions of possible offenders. Guardians safeguard against crime targets, including security staff or neighbourhood patrols. Managers, such as property overseers or municipal officials, adjust settings to discourage criminal acts (Eck and Madensen-Herold 2018; Felson 1995). The integration of such policy decisions with urban planning and design illustrates the complex interplay between governance, financial systems, and the physical shaping of urban environments. They can set policies, norms, or environmental designs that may significantly impact the effectiveness of crime prevention efforts. Rothstein (2017) suggests that control over urban development extends from financial and government organisations that finance and regulate property ownership. There is also evidence that local governments can prevent crime by acting as a “supercontroller”. Gross Shader et al. (2024) examined 44 studies on the effectiveness of local government-led and -initiated non-police interventions at crime hot spots and found that “place-based strategies initiated by local governments can be effective across multiple domains of crime prevention”.

Governmental bodies and policymakers can enact laws, regulations, and urban planning guidelines that shape the physical and social environment in ways that can affect crime opportunities. In the past, research has shown how historical government practices, such as zoning and redlining in the USA, have contributed to segregation (Ellis-Soto et al. 2023; Rothstein 2017). Housing and migration policies might have similar effects in Sweden (Andersson 2013). The rise of gating in large housing estates in the USA (Blakely and Snyder 1997) and elsewhere has been largely documented (but also in European countries, e.g. Grundström and Lelévrier 2023), showing the role of governments at all levels in urban development. Within this frame, real estate decisions significantly impact neighbourhood demographics and economic conditions, affecting indirectly crime and safety (Linning and Eck 2021). These authors highlight the pivotal role of local governments and policymakers in urban development, setting land use and development policies as areas in which architects and planners operate. In nations where one might anticipate that public policies wield substantial influence over the shaping of the physical and social landscape, the actual dynamics of urban environment formation are shown to be intricate and far from straightforward. In Sweden, for example, a “typical” welfare state country that has undergone major societal changes in the last few decades (Branteryd et al. 2021), government policies have attempted to influence the socio-demographic and ethnic makeup of particular types of neighbourhoods primarily to combat segregation. However, despite these policy efforts, their effectiveness in diminishing segregation levels has proven to be limited (Andersson et al. 2010).

Urban planners and government officials, including property developers, in consultation with the public, make long-term plans, and through these plans, they develop zoning for the city and the location of roads. Zoning includes single-family zoning with different lot sizes, and multi-family zoning of different sizes, with both solely residential zones and some zones with mixed commercial and residential premises. There are also special zoning categories when a potential developer puts forward a special plan that can differ from the other zoning categories. These plans go forward individually and are usually very extensive, but it is difficult to get them approved for building. So, developers can buy land, say, for small apartments when they want to build large apartments. First, they have to obtain rezoning permission by the city (with a rough plan) and then enter the process of detailed design. Frequently, many regulations come before the detailed design, including soil, topography, water flows, environment, traffic, etc. Alternatively, developers look for land that is already zoned for the type of building they want to build. They can choose between plots or groups of plots and pick areas they prefer. Decisions by businesses and property developers on location and development types, which are usually limited by city zoning for land use, can significantly impact an area’s economic vitality, indirectly influencing crime levels. Their decisions on where to locate a residential area (Blakely and Snyder 1997) or their businesses (Papachristos et al. 2011) may affect what happens outside on the streets, for example pedestrian flows, and indirect natural surveillance and guardianship (Jacobs 1961).

To summarise, “shapers” refer to a wide array of individuals and entities that play pivotal roles in the development of urban environments, influencing a city's governance, social, economic, environmental aspects, and safety. Although shapers operate across supranational, national, regional, and local levels, this article primarily centres on those working at the city level, such as architects, planners, engineers, police, and criminologists, emphasising their day-to-day contributions to urban development and the safety of inhabitants.

Why do built environment professionals overlook crime and safety issues in their daily work?

Architects, urban planners, and designers commonly disregard crime-related considerations in their decision-making frameworks. Based on his experience in the United States, Paulsen (2013) highlights that there is a belief prevalent among these professionals that crime is influenced by a multitude of factors, with the environment often perceived as playing only a peripheral role. For instance, when designing a park or residential complex, the primary focus might be on aesthetics or maximising units and attractiveness to the paying user of the space, with little thought given to how design choices could deter or facilitate criminal activity (Taylor et al. 2019). When planning a shopping mall, the goal might be maximising areas for profit without thinking about the effect of crowdedness in particular places or the crime attractor/generator potential (Ceccato et al. 2018; Ceccato and Tcacencu 2018; Savard and Kennedy 2014). This mindset leads to a “not my job, why bother about crime?” attitude.

Another reason is a semantic one. The term “crime” frequently has a different meaning for urban professionals. For them, it often means public safety and fear of crime. For many, “reducing fear” means that crime is reduced, while people who commit crimes are frequently afraid of the same areas as everyone else. For better interdisciplinary communication, many need multiple words (e. g., crime, public safety, and fear of crime; youth who commit an occasional crime and chronic offenders), but thus far, this semantic confusion makes cooperation and shared visions more difficult.

Cultural differences between planning and police professionals may also inhibit cooperation (Rohe et al. 2001; Whitzman 2005). A common misconception among architects, urban planners, and designers is that they are addressing crime through their designs when, in fact, they are not. For example, there is anecdotal evidence in Sweden from urban planners suggesting that designing spaces for children automatically “resolves” safety issues for all demographic groups. Another example is the US, where planners might design a space that is visually appealing and functional but fails to incorporate natural surveillance or safe pedestrian routes, inadvertently creating opportunities for crime (Paulsen 2013).

Additionally, there is a false belief that prioritising crime prevention in planning is incompatible with other objectives, such as creating aesthetically pleasing or environmentally sustainable spaces (Paulsen 2013). This misconception overlooks the potential for synergy between crime prevention and other planning goals. Designing well-lit, active public spaces can enhance social interaction, contribute to a community’s walkability, better health and deter criminal activities. Architecture and planning require creativity, and shapers can put in practice crime prevention in ways compatible with other goals. For instance, incorporating specific design street features in pathways can improve safety and encourage more people to use these spaces (Welle et al. 2015).

Another reason is that urban planners and architects may not consider the surroundings of the target area when looking at hyperlocation: “the building”, alleys, and façades (e. g. Hillier and Sahbaz 2012). Safety experts (criminologists, the police) are interested in crime, which affects criminogenic conditions beyond a particular building and area (Boessen and Hipp 2015; O’Brien 2019). Moreover, there is a gap in education and training regarding understanding and preventing crime among planners and related professionals. Despite the existence of long-standing programmes such as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) or crime analysis, or situational crime prevention, these are rarely incorporated into the core curriculum of architectural or urban planning education (Ceccato 2020b; Whitzman 2005). Similarly, basic planning and architecture are rarely taught in a criminology programme. Consequently, when architects, urban planners, and designers face the task of developing a new residential area or revitalising an existing one, they may not consider in the first place the visibility between public and private spaces, and this can influence safety and crime (Paulsen 2013). Nor do many police officers see the plans for a new development and realise when they need to talk to a relevant shaper. Nor do many realise that architects and planners usually can see many ways of addressing a safety problem. It is always less expensive to identify difficulties early in the process before money has been spent on detailed design.

Another reason for this disconnection is that planners might not view crime prevention as a central aspect of their role or of the planning process, despite recognising its importance to society. This happens because of the immediate visibility of the impact of their decisions on crime levels, making it challenging to prioritise these considerations without explicit directives or incentives. Ignoring crime prevention not only undermines the broader goals of urban planning but can also lead to environments that exacerbate safety issues and diminish the quality of life.

Finally, criminological research underscores the significant impact planning decisions have on crime levels, emphasising that neglecting this aspect can have detrimental effects on community well-being. Conversely, integrating crime prevention strategies, such as ensuring clear sightlines and maintaining public spaces, can enhance community safety and contribute to the creation of stable, sustainable, and inclusive urban environments.

Both urban planning and criminological literature have extensively demonstrated the significant impacts of neighbourhood ecology and culture since social disorganisation theory was born (Boessen and Hipp 2015; Sampson 2012; Shaw and McKay 1942). A contemporary neighbourhood planning theory is perhaps necessary to advocate approaches to urban development that align with the social ecology perspective prevalent in planning practices. This may involve concepts like “supercontrollers” (Sampson and Eck 2008) that underline the importance of community and capacity building, some of which involve not only community engagement face-to-face but also participation using online platforms. Within smart cities and smart homes, firms overseeing surveillance, social media, and digital platforms emerge as supercontrollers. By defining the online environment, they can work together with planners and architects to prevent cybercrime. This is important because crime frequently straddles both physical and virtual interactions, shaping both digital and real-world safety environments (Chavez and Bichler 2019).

Finally, communication between urban shapers and environmental criminologists also means more detailed learning by all sides. For example, condominiums are becoming the new ways of urban living for many. Many building codes require high entrance and lock security in condomimiums. Legally, this usually means restricted entry into condominium buildings or units by the police. This is being solved but requires new legislations in many jurisdictions. Building “walls or hard security” may well lead to more isolation. Safety from “the bad guy” may well lead to more isolation from both formal helpers and helpful people.

Now, we will turn to the discussion of possible reasons why criminologists, the police and safety professionals often underestimate the role of architects, planners, and designers in shaping urban landscapes that may or may not generate crime opportunities, as well as their impact on practices in crime prevention.

Why do safety experts underestimate the role of built environment professionals?

Criminology as a discipline has long neglected the role of the environment in crime causation (Clarke and Felson 1993, p. 4; Weisburd et al. 2011, p. 11) and consequently, of those whose role it is to shape the environments where crime takes place. Cohen and Felson (1979) argue that the emphasis of criminology on explanations centred on the individual overlooks the crucial role of place as a structural setting for social interactions, a viewpoint supported by Brantingham and Brantingham (1995, p. 3). In defining the concept of opportunity space, Brantingham and Brantingham (1984, p. 362) suggest that potential crime victims/targets are not distributed uniformly in space. It is the interaction of the location of potential targets and the criminal’s awareness or activity space that culminate in particular patterns of crime occurrence. They suggest that offenders learn through experience or social transmission clues that are associated with good victims or places where they can act. The role of the environment is, therefore, an important one. As previously mentioned, these ideas have been around for more than four decades and compose the essence of the field of environmental criminology as a school of thought.

More interestingly, even those who have focused their research on finding out why people become criminals recognise that the environment matters for crime causation. As early as 1947, Sutherland’s groundbreaking study indicated that the immediate situation (including the environment) plays a significant role in influencing the occurrence of crime. Similarly, Wikström (2023) states that understanding the reasons why certain environments produce more criminal incidents than others is of central importance for crime prevention work. Using situational action theory principles, the author suggests that just as individuals vary in their character, places vary in their “action environments”. The variation in criminal incidents across locations is influenced by the activities and demographics they attract and, more importantly, the prevailing moral norms. These elements shape opportunities and obstacles for crime, dictating the behaviour of individuals in response to these conditions. This means that assessing the interplay between individuals and the environment is crucial for understanding why some places are more prone to criminal acts than others.

The underestimation of the role of the environment by safety experts can be attributed to several other factors, including the historical development of the fields, and disciplinary silos, including differences in professional language and focus. As previously mentioned, the same words can mean different things in different disciplines. For instance, “space” in urban planning might refer to open spaces, parks, and paths, while in criminology, it might be discussed in terms of territoriality or control or even as administrative units. These differences in terminology and focus can lead to misunderstandings or undervaluation of the other’s expertise.

Another reason for the fact that criminologists, the police, and safety experts often underestimate the role of urban planning professionals is that we are still continuing to work in silos. For instance, in developing a new residential area without integrating crime prevention insights, urban planners may inadvertently design spaces that contribute to unequal victimisation by not considering the safety needs of those who are going to move to this new area. A multi-disciplinary approach that encourages collaboration across different sectors is necessary when it comes to tackling problems of crime and safety together. This includes, for instance, a constellation of actors and built environment professionals together with law enforcement, urban planning, public health, education, and social services, among other things. By breaking down silos and fostering a culture of cooperation, comprehensive strategies can be developed that address the causes of crime in particular places rather than merely its symptoms.

Criminologists, the police and safety experts also need to learn more about the theories around planning, urban design, transportation, and urban sustainability. What crime prevention specialists see as a solution may not fit into the overarching plan for a city or the requirements for buildings, parks, roads and transport. As mentioned before, this is not included in traditional criminology or criminal justice programmes, and this amplifies the disconnection. For instance, while planners decided to switch off park lights after midnight to cut energy costs and support biodiversity, criminologists and safety experts preferred to maintain regular lighting to enhance safety and reduce fear. This situation highlights the clashes among economic, environmental and social sustainability objectives arising from misalignment among urban planners, criminologists, police, and safety professionals. Moreover, the development of gated communities and the commodification of security specially in cities of the global south constitute another example. Gated communities, despite controversy, are marketed for reducing crime through access control and surveillance (Bandauko et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2021). However, urban planners counter that such communities deepen social and spatial divides, result in longer distances for public transport, and limit access to public facilities for everybody else outside the gates, thus, undermining urban cohesion (Landman 2020) and affecting the long-term sustainability of the city.

Another example relates to structural obstacles that separate planners and safety experts within local governance and women’s safety. Suppose urban planners are involved in interventions dealing with violence against women in cities. In that case, they would tend to be largely focused on public space, while police, social care, and safety experts take care of violence more in general but often including domestic violence. Research on violence against women shows a continuum of harm, from that conducted in private spaces to that conducted in schools, the workplace, and public space (Rodriguez-Spahia and Barberet 2020). This is a structural problem and imposes limitations between professionals who only deal with outdoor safety and those who deal with indoor safety or both. In the future, without a clear connection between SDG 11 and SDGs 5 and 16, the efforts to diminish violence against women may only achieve limited success, and this is quite dependent on cooperation between professionals. The critique highlights the interconnectedness of the SDGs, suggesting that an integrated approach is necessary for addressing complex social issues like violence against women, demanding that those approaches beyond gender-neutral policies are better aligned among built environment professionals, the police, and other relevant stakeholders.

Sweden: a case study

Using Sweden as a case study, we investigate the role of architects/urban planners and safety experts in municipal planning. This case intends to illustrate how the gap between these groups of experts manifests itself in a specific national context. This investigation was commissioned by the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning—Boverket. While we recognise that this example may not be universally applicable, it serves to demonstrate some of the ideas discussed in the preceding sections.

Sweden is home to around 10.6 million people distributed in 290 municipalities, over 2 million of whom reside in rural areas (UN 2024). The bulk of the population lives in the southern region, which is also where the most accessible rural areas are located. The country has a low population density, with 21 people per square kilometre, in contrast to Denmark’s 125 (OECD 2017). Economic differences among municipalities contribute to varying crime rates. For example, municipalities with a tourism focus witness seasonal crime rate fluctuations, often tied to the number of visitors, highlighting the need for targeted crime prevention strategies. Over a 15-year span, police data indicate that urban areas and accessible rural areas face higher crime rates compared to more isolated areas. While urban and rural crime trends differ, they have generally moved in parallel, notably converging in 2014 to levels seen in 2002, with spikes in violence, criminal damage, and certain property crimes. Conversely, crime victim surveys in the last five years in Sweden reveal a more consistent decrease in crime rates, presenting a steadier decline (Ceccato and Abraham 2022).

Among “the shappers”, built environment professionals in Sweden work with a range of activities depending on their specialisation, from architects to physical planners and landscape architects (Boverket, 2023). They are, to different degrees, responsible for designing and  creating sustainable, inclusive urban environments that balance social, economic, and environmental needs in accordance with national and local policies.

Architects and urban planners are distinct professions. Architects typically design buildings, often working for architecture firms or construction companies. However, the architects and planners we are focusing on in this article typically work at the municipal level in interdisciplinary teams, contributing to both detailed and comprehensive plans. They oversee the construction of new residential areas alongside other architects, such as landscape architects responsible for parks, as well as engineers. We grouped these experts together under the category “urban designers” due to their collaborative efforts and shared expertise. There are also safety experts who are professionals dedicated to enhancing public safety within urban and community planning, assessing and mitigating risks, and working with crime prevention. These experts collaborate with urban planners, architects, law enforcement, and community organisations to implement safety interventions as needed.

Sweden’s planning system, with its roots in the 1960s and 1970s, has evolved from using master plans to adopting municipal planning guidelines. Municipalities hold exclusive rights to a “municipal planning monopoly”, which allows them to develop comprehensive plans that specify land and water use throughout the municipality, even though these plans do not carry legal force. Detailed development plans, however, are binding and specify public spaces and building requirements, including aesthetics in some cases. The planning framework, governed by the Planning and Building Act and the Environmental Code, enables the integration of safety measures into urban development, often with other stakeholders. Moreover, municipalities are now required, under new regulations in the Planning and Building Act, to maintain an updated comprehensive plan. This plan serves as the municipality’s declaration of intent on how the physical environment should be used, developed, and preserved, making it a crucial political goal document of central importance to their strategies for sustainable long-term development. Officially, crime and safety issues are not part of this Planning and Building Act. However, there is no barrier in practice for planners and housing developers to take the design into account when planning a new residential area. When an area already exists, many larger municipalities, in partnership with the Police Authority, often work focusing on long-term strategies, primarily addressing social crime prevention, with the police having a central role, followed by schools, youth organisations, and social care services (Ceccato, 2016).

In July 2023, a new law regarding municipal responsibilities for crime prevention was implemented (Regeringen, 2023). This law shifts the responsibility for crime prevention from the state to the municipalities, also including a budget (SOU 2021, p. 49). The new municipal law in Sweden places key responsibilities on municipalities regarding crime prevention. It requires the municipal executive committee to bear ultimate responsibility and appoint a designated safety coordinator. Additionally, municipalities must establish collaborative councils to address ongoing crime prevention efforts alongside other actors. Furthermore, the law mandates the production of biennial status reports on crime prevention efforts, with an analysis of their effectiveness. Importantly, the law grants flexibility, as it does not prescribe specific priorities or methods, allowing each municipality to tailor its approach based on its unique circumstances and safety needs. Standardisation of planning processes (national or international) has never been part of the Swedish planning model. Note that the answers reported in this article reflect the practices and views of planners and safety experts before the law was implemented, we discuss this issue more in detail below.

Research design

A survey was sent to all municipalities in Sweden and directed to built environment professionals (architects, urban planners, urban designers and landscape engineers) and safety experts working at the municipality; this sample does not include the police (addresses of the persons responsible in each municipality from the Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning). We report here the results from a Crowdsignal survey (https://crowdsignal.com/) on the roles of architects, urban planners, and designers in shaping urban environments and how these roles can influence crime and safety (the survey link was sent by email). The survey was sent via email on 25 April 2019, and four reminders on 29 April, 6 May, 16 May and 23 May. The survey actually had two versions and was sent to each municipality, one for planners and the other for safety experts.Footnote 1 Although virtually identical, the survey for safety experts included two extra questions on policing. As many as 185 municipalities completed at least one survey (69%); if we included the incomplete surveys, 214 municipalities answered at least one survey (80%). Although the response rate was representative for municipality types (urban municipalities, accessible rural municipalities, and remote rural municipalities), those who did not answer all the questions were often those living in sparsely populated municipalities. Regarding the respondents’ profile, planners are generally younger than safety coordinators, with 33% aged 40–49, while 37% of safety coordinators are 50–59. The gender distribution among planners is balanced (50% men, 48% women, 2% unspecified), while men dominate among safety coordinators (57% men, 40% women, 2% unspecified). Planners are mostly city or physical/landscape planners (41%), with 20% having technical education and 10% having community or security-related education. Safety coordinators primarily have security-related education (34%), followed by social sciences (15%) and police training (12%) for a more detailed description of the sample, see Ceccato et al. (2019).

The survey consisted of questions on situational crime prevention, safety perspectives, and measures in relation to the built environment, as well as the processes of planning, design, construction, and management of the built environment. The survey also included questions about community engagement in Neighbourhood Watch Schemes, night patrols, BIDs, citizen dialogues, place-making, and other initiatives. Although important, these aspects are not discussed in the results of this paper due to the article’s specific focus. We also assess differences in practices between planners and safety experts in a number of aspects, such as considerations of individual safety needs, standardisation, and whether they cooperate with each other. There were also questions about cooperation with other actors, which are not fully discussed in detail in this article, but see a summary by Ceccato (2020a, b) or a full report in Swedish (Ceccato et al. 2019). Note that we present the answers to these questions as frequencies in figures, showcasing a selected number of responses that are relevant and aligned with the purpose of this article.

Results

Crime and safety have become increasingly important issues in municipalities in Sweden during the last decade. This is evident from various reports and surveys indicating a rise in certain types of crimes and heightened concerns about public safety (BRÅ 2023). Our survey results show that the way built environment professionals and safety experts implement these issues in their daily work varies by municipality type and size (Ceccato 2020b).

Adoption of crime and safety issues in local planning

A quarter of the municipalities do not work with crime and safety in planning other than with the risk of fire or traffic safety. The views of the planners fit well with the regulations associated with most of their work. There are laws and regulations that control planning, actor discussions, required special reports, and an action checklist by a developer. There are fire codes, building codes, and road safety codes that even specify the curve in a road, given the mandated speed. There are usually review panels to verify that what is done fits the rules or has accepted exemptions. There is little preference in the type of approach except on the part of the safety experts, but their preference may come from the service they provide. It is difficult to know exactly how much is done in practice, but there are similarities between these planners and safety experts. For instance, although 61% of planners and 77% of safety experts state that they take into account crime and safety as a dimension of physical planning (Fig. 1a), note that only 27% of planners and 17% of safety experts declare implementing principles of natural surveillance in new housing developments (Fig. 1b).

Fig. 1
figure 1

A few examples of similarities and differences in practices declared by built environment professionals and safety experts in Swedish municipalities. Data source: Ceccato et al. (2019) (N = 290)

Full size image

The fact that almost two-thirds of these experts include safety as a dimension of physical planning is notable and could be viewed as a success on an international scale. However, this does not capture the complete picture. Interpreting the local and global significance of these findings is challenging, as other indicators from the survey suggest that the integration of crime and safety in day-to-day planning may not be as extensive or consistent across municipalities as anticipated. Half of the planners have knowledge about the concept of CPTED. However, not many of them say that they apply it in practice: only a quarter of planners consider safety in the design of new buildings in a way that strengthens natural surveillance. The same applies to situational crime prevention principles in residential areas with crime and safety problems. They highlight the fact that they value visibility as a safety measure, with 66% in larger municipalities and 55% in smaller municipalities prioritising windows on important façades. Two-thirds of municipalities consider maintenance of public places crucial, with 80% in larger municipalities and 72% in smaller ones, especially maintenance of illumination.

Crime and safety implementation by local actors

Differences in practice also emerge between the two groups. Figure 1c shows that 40% of planners agree with the statement that “Safety and security are created by constructing areas delimited by physical barriers such as gates, fences, and similar”. As many as 83% of safety experts in the municipality would consider building physical barriers to make environments safe as an alternative. While planners emphasise improving safety via the physical environment and land use, this distinction is clear when analysing how planners and safety coordinators differ in their approaches to public transport placement, area identity, the importance of the temporal dimension of crime, and varying safety needs of users (Fig. 1d).

The notion of working in “silos” was shared by planners and safety experts. Planners and safety experts share similar collaboration partners. When asked: “Thinking about the last time you collaborated on crime and/or safety issues in your municipality, which stakeholders and actors were involved?”, both planners and safety experts first mentioned the police, followed by contact within their own group. The third most common collaboration partner was the “place manager” (rental and condominiums), school leaders, followed by each other (safety experts/planners).

Of the planners who answered the question about collaboration with the police, slightly more than half of the sample indicated that they collaborated with the police. Some of these contacts were quite superficial (such as responding to emails and handling referrals), while others also involved other stakeholders (social care, schools). Half of the safety coordinators stated that there is a lack of cooperation between them and local stakeholders to address crime and/or safety issues, which can be attributed to the relatively new role of safety experts in some municipalities. There are also similarities between how these professional groups view standardisation in solutions for enhancing safety and security in the built environment could have positive effects. As many as 35% of planners and 30% of safety coordinators believe that increased standardisation would make it easier to consider safety issues in the building process and crime prevention. Many municipalities employ consultants or choose other routes to tackle safety problems or a combination of solutions. At the time of the survey, 66% of planners and 41% of safety coordinators indicated that they lack policy and governance documents or similar that address the issues of crime and safety as guidance (Ceccato 2020b).

Expectations for future planning practices

A bit more than half of those who responded to the survey believe they would focus more on safety issues in future planning compared to their efforts at the time of the survey in 2019. To facilitate this shift, they emphasised the need for better funding from the national government in particular and the importance of increased knowledge among planners and architects on situational crime prevention, improved coordination between actors, and clearer guidelines from national bodies. One of the recommendations was to create educational opportunities for learning about safety guidelines, recommended for experts working on construction and crime prevention at the municipal and regional levels—this could take shape as a “safety monitoring lab” (Ceccato 2020b). Much of these expectations were directed toward the implementation of the new municipal law. However, it remains unclear how much progress has been made in this area since the law came into force in July 2023.

The wish for safety input and consideration of all separate groups does leave an opening for more professional input. There appears to be no professional education about relevant criminology. The answers show the lack of penetration of what is known in situational crime prevention. With the growth expectations, it would help reduce long-lasting problems like the massive housing projects in most of the world and the lack of equality in who receives special consideration. Contemporary safety challenges require a diverse set of abilities and expertise that go beyond traditional professional expectations, highlighting the need for a wider range of skills to effectively understand and address crime (Ceccato and Newton 2024).

Breaking the silos, though difficult, at least in Sweden, may have an audience, though it is an audience drawn to explicit guidelines. We recognise that many external organisations outside the governance of local planning have worked hard and diligently to enhance the collaboration between safety experts and those involved in planning and design. For example, the International CPTED Association (the ICA), the association of professionals and researchers engaged in urban design and crime prevention, has developed design guidelines for practitioners such as local planners and architects. There have been efforts in the development and implementation of international design standards through the International Standards Organisation, the ISO (ISO 2021). However, the issue is not with the efforts or effectiveness of these external organisations. Instead, the need lies in a structural shift of local governments toward a more sustainable, systemic approach—one that integrates safety considerations from the outset and permeates all levels of planning and design processes.

Built environment professionals and safety experts must change the way in which they implement crime and safety measures. An integrated approach is necessary, where interventions are defined with consideration for feedback loops that recognise failures, accept complexity and understand that a complete grasp of “the system” may be impossible. Instead, the focus should be on identifying methods to monitor changes. Encouraging a questioning process, rather than providing the answers, will promote discussion and allow actors to defend and refine their viewpoints in a argumentative way.

Conclusions and recommendations

This article investigated the disconnection between urban planning and crime prevention, with a particular focus on situational crime prevention. Using Sweden as a study case, we show that findings from a survey involving urban planners and safety experts across 290 Swedish municipalities underscore the disconnection, highlighting the need for integrated approaches that prioritise safety among other important aspects of urban planning.

Our findings also indicate that built environment professionals can be tasked with integrating crime prevention strategies into the design and development of urban spaces, considering how the physical layout, design of public spaces, lighting and surveillance can influence crime and perceptions of safety. In practice, built environment professionals often operate under constraints such as limited resources, stringent building and planning regulations, and the demands of diverse special interest groups. These groups may prioritise objectives other than security and safety, such as energy savings or economic efficiency, adding complexity to the task of urban development while striving to balance these diverse and sometimes competing sustainable development goals, making the work of built environment professionals a difficult task. Most importantly, the question that remains to be addressed is how architects and planners can deal with the obstacles presented by other shapers? Architects and planners face hurdles from government policies and stakeholder interests, such as those of construction firms and the real estate sector. This affects their work on new and existent residential areas, for example when mitigating segregation and preserving the integrity of urban public spaces for all. Though no universal solution exists, it is important for those influenced by these actors to recognise their existence.

One limitation of this article is that we devoted too little time to discussing the role of other shapers at the macro level and the supercontrollers at the national and supranational levels. For instance, insurance companies, as major financial players with substantial investment capabilities, have the resources to fund large-scale housing projects all around the world. Their involvement in such projects can shape the housing market, the environment of these areas and, by extension, influence the social and economic landscape of neighbourhoods and cities. In areas that already exist, insurance companies may also have a role to play in affecting the safety in the city but in other cases, such impact may be overestimated (Karlsson 2020). Another example are politicians and urban developers that can affect crime in an area by planning and building entire cities (e.g. Brasília in Brazil, Islamabad in Pakistan, garden cities in the UK and in Sweden), building or regenerating neighbourhoods leading to gentrification (e.g. Convent Garden in London). Future research should investigate the social implications, including how these investments affect community cohesion (e.g. gated communities, commodification of security), access to services and whether they play any role in promoting safe and socially sustainable housing developments.

Another area where more research is needed is the impact of technological developments on mobility and the form of cities. As we have seen, COVID has been causing major changes in what used to be the core of cities (Batty et al. 2022; Florida et al. 2023), and more people work partially at home, as individuals and businesses concentrate on less expensive margins. With enhanced computer services, these changes may become permanent, and environment and crime will develop a new dimension. Finally, two other research fields that deserve extra attention are areas in which the efforts of shapers have been lacking. The first refers to areas of the urban fringe or on the 'rural–urban continuum' (Ceccato & Abraham 2022) where the absence of shapers leads to neglected areas (e.g. Sui and Lu 2021), where well-thought-out social infrastructure and community services are lacking, and where criminal activities may thrive. The second area involves border regions, where overarching control by national-level border control is present, and municipal governance alone may prove insufficient in addressing crime-related challenges effectively.

With architects, urban planners, designers, and engineers commonly disregarding crime-related issues, we are offered a somewhat empty but challenging plate. On a similar note, why does criminology underestimate the role of built environment professionals in affecting the urban environment?

The gap in the Planning and Building Act regarding crime and safety considerations suggests a lack of incentive for urban planners to address these issues. To incentivise planners in Sweden in particular, future research could explore integrating crime prevention into the Act, offering financial incentives like grants and tax breaks, and developing professional development programmes focused on safety. Increasing public awareness can drive demand for safer environments while establishing collaborative frameworks between planners and law enforcement, while community organisations can provide essential support. Additionally, implementing performance metrics to evaluate safety aspects of urban projects can further motivate planners. These strategies can ensure that situational crime prevention measures are taken seriously in urban planning.

All of our readers come from different backgrounds, and we would like to suggest taking advantage of the options that are most likely to work. The suggestions below involve a multifaceted approach. Here is a detailed exploration based on the questions posed:

  1. 1.

    Engaging with key actors—identify and engage with the main stakeholders and actors within your area, such as urban planners, architects, law enforcement officers, and community leaders. The goal is to create a dialogue and foster a collaborative environment. Key actors who are genuinely interested can catalyse significant changes by incorporating crime prevention into urban planning. Engaging with them involves understanding their perspectives, identifying common goals, and exploring how integrating safety and crime prevention can benefit the overall design and functionality of urban spaces.

  2. 2.

    Education and training opportunities—investigate and advocate the inclusion of crime prevention and safety courses in the continuing education requirements for urban planning and architectural professions. These courses can bridge the gap by providing essential knowledge on identifying potential crime hotspots and integrating crime prevention through environmental design principles. Collaboration with professional bodies and educational institutions is key to developing and implementing these courses.

  3. 3.

    Cross-training with law enforcement—develop specialised training programmes for law enforcement officers that focus on the significance of urban design in crime prevention. By understanding the role of physical environments in crime occurrence and the functional language of architects and urban planners, the police can better collaborate with urban planners and architects to recommend design modifications that enhance public safety.

  4. 4.

    Networking and collaboration platforms—establish webinars and networking platforms that facilitate the exchange of ideas, best practices and solutions among professionals across different disciplines. This collaborative environment encourages sharing experiences, discussing common challenges, and developing tailored solutions that respect the local context and community needs.

  5. 5.

    University partnerships—partner with universities, potentially involving institutions in developing standardised courses that equip future professionals with the skills needed to integrate crime prevention into urban design. This long-term strategy ensures a steady stream of professionals who are aware of and capable of addressing these challenges.

  6. 6.

    International expert networks—form an international network of experts specialising in environmental criminology and urban design and planning. Such networks facilitate the exchange of global insights, innovative approaches, and best practices. Securing funding for international collaboration can amplify the impact of these efforts. Some of these are already available, such as Safer Cities by UN-Safer Cities Programme, and ICA, the international professional organisation specialising in crime prevention in urban planning, ECCA, Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis and Safe Places Network in Sweden, which is a network of information exchange between academics and practitioners.

  7. 7.

    Focus on translational criminology—both between criminology and planning and between academia and practice. Enhance research and professional groups dedicated to translational criminology, emphasising practical application of criminological research to urban planning and vice versa. This approach ensures that theoretical knowledge is effectively translated into actionable strategies for crime prevention and urban safety enhancement, instead of criminologists “spoon-feeding” planners or vice versa. The field would also benefit from a wider discussion of the types of models necessary to promote bridge-building processes between criminology and society at large. Balanced bridge-building processes have to be able to withstand equal two-way relationships, where the agenda for both research and policy is set through a process of transparent interaction. To tackle safety problems, Sustainable Development Goal 17 considers the role of partnerships as the goal for implementing cooperation between municipal planners, safety experts, policy and the private sector.

  8. 8.

    Research in environmental criminology—broaden the scope of environmental criminology research to include emerging architectural and urban design approaches focused on reducing fear and enhancing public safety. This research should consider demographic factors such as the safety needs of a diverse group, ageing populations, and diversity in general to ensure inclusivity and accessibility. Research could also engage with the innovative use of data sources (e.g. crowdsourcing, social media, and remote sensing data) and methods involving fields of engineering, for example, machine learning and mathematics such as algebraic topology, as well as experiments using virtual reality. Environmental criminology should extend the evidence to settings outside big cities (e.g. Harkness et al. 2022), revealing the potential criminogenic nature of areas on the rural–urban continuum.

  9. 9.

    Connect with the public health perspective—recognise and promote the understanding that crime prevention and urban design not only affect crime levels but also influence public health (Ceccato 2020a; Sidebottom and Tilley 2023), and mental well-being and quality of life as part of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). This perspective underscores the importance of safe, well-designed urban environments in supporting overall community health, well-being, and recovery (Pauleit et al. 2023). Given the fact that victimisation around the world is gender unequal, Sustainable Development Goal 5 on gender equality and Goal 10 are important when it comes to reducing inequalities.

  10. 10.

    System thinking for sustainable crime prevention—work towards creating a sustainable approach to integrating crime prevention into urban planning. While individual commitment is crucial, establishing a structured framework ensures the continuity and long-term effectiveness of these efforts (Ceccato and Newton 2024). As previously mentioned, this is important for the alignment between urban safety interventions and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Additionally, we support the calls for more studies on the nexus between adapting to climate change and preventing crime, as well as the contribution of crime scientists to creating safer urban areas in the face of climate change challenges [see, for instance, Chamard (2023), Pease and Farrell (2011)]. Adopting a system-thinking approach to crime prevention can foster interconnected long-term crime prevention strategies that meet the diverse needs of multiple future city users.

Even though planners and architects often consider issues of crime and safety to be outside their area of action, they inadvertently influence criminogenic conditions when shaping the city. By designing and organising city spaces, these professionals significantly impact the governance, social dynamics, economic conditions, and environmental factors that contribute to urban crime and safety. These shapers play a significant role in influencing the governance of the place and the social, economic, and environmental conditions of a city, including aspects related to crime and safety. We want to bring broader knowledge to play on their part and better knowledge of urban shapers on our part. This study has sought to bridge the gap between urban planning and crime prevention by highlighting opportunities and barriers to cooperation and calling for further research in this field.