Safety in Numbers: High-Resolution Analysis of Crime in Street Networks

  • Bill Hillier
  • Ozlem Sahbaz


In this chapter, we report results from a study of residential burglary and street robbery in the street network of a London borough, using space syntax to analyse the street network. The results are presented against a background of current issues in urban design under discussion between the New Urbanism movement and the Design Against Crime community: streets or cul-de-sacs, mixed use, permeability and density. A method of primary risk band analysis is proposed as the basis of a simple, repeatable methodology for the analysis of crime patterns in street networks.


Geographic Information System Street Network Street Segment Residential Unit Space Syntax 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alford, V. (1996). Crime and space in the Inner City. Urban Design Studies, 2, 45–76.Google Scholar
  2. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Pease, K. (2004). Prospective hotspotting: The future of crime mapping? The British Journal of Criminology, 44(5), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Budd, T. (1999). Burglary of domestic dwellings: Findings of the British crime survey (Home office statistical bulletin, 4/99). London: Government Statistical Service.Google Scholar
  4. Hillier, B. (1988). In N. Teymur, T. Markus, & T. Wooley (Eds.), Against enclosure. Rehumanising housing (pp. 63–85). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  5. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hillier, B. (2000). Centrality as a process: Accounting for attraction inequalities in deformed grids. Urban Design International, 3(4), 107–127.Google Scholar
  7. Hillier, B. (2004). Can streets be made safe? Urban Design International, 9(1), 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hillier, B. (2012). Studying cities to learn about minds. Environment and Planning B, 39, 12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hillier, B., & Iida, S. (2005). Network and psychological effects in urban movement. In A. Cohn & D. Mark (Eds.), Spatial information theory (Lecture notes in computer science, 3603, pp. 473–490). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Hillier, B., & Shu, S. (2000). Crime and urban layout: The need for evidence. In S. Ballintyne, K. Pease, & V. McLaren (Eds.), Secure foundations: Key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety. London: IPPR.Google Scholar
  12. Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Grajewski, J., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, 20, 29–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, S., & Bowers, K. (2009). Permeability and burglary risk: Are cul-de-sacs safer? Journal of Quantitative Criminology Springer Science + Business Media LLC. doi: 10.1007/s10940–009–9084–8.Google Scholar
  14. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Penn, A., Hillier, B., Banister, D., & Xu, J. (1998). Configurational modelling of urban movement networks. Environment and Planning B Planning and Design, 25(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shu, S. (2000). Crime in urban layouts. PhD thesis, University of London, London.Google Scholar
  17. Town, S., & O’Toole, R. (2005). Crime-friendly neighborhoods. URL: Assessed Dec 2010.
  18. Zelinka, A., & Brennan, D. (2001). Safescape: Creating safer, more liveable communities through planning and design. Chicago: APA Planner Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bartlett School of Graduate StudiesUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations