![Causal effect of CPTED elements on residential neighbourhood crime (Cozens & Love, 2015) [16]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Babatunde-Olajide/publication/315727702/figure/fig1/AS:478243355664385@1491033509444/Causal-effect-of-CPTED-elements-on-residential-neighbourhood-crime-Cozens-Love-2015_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Babatunde Sunday Emmanuel Olajide
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Babatunde Sunday Emmanuel Olajide on Apr 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
196
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
Online ISSN: 2349-4182, Print ISSN: 2349-5979, Impact Factor: RJIF 5.72
www.allsubjectjournal.com
Volume 4; Issue 3; March 2017; Page No. 196-206
Testing the veracity of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in residential
neighbourhood crime prevention
Sunday Emmanuel Olajide, Mohd Lizam
Department of Real Estate, Faculty of Technology Management & Business, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
Abstract
Over the years, the use of penal system (use of police, court and prison) in combating urban crime in general and residential
neighbourhood crime in particular has been found to be grossly inadequate as it has failed to meet the required expectation. Hence,
one of the alternative measures taken to complement this approach is crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED).
The aim of this study is to test the veracity of CPTED as a tool for controlling residential neighbourhood crime (RNC). The basic
method used in achieving the research’s objective was content analysis through a critical review of existing literature and empirical
studies in respect of the subject matter. The result of the findings showed that there were enough practical and theoretical proofs
attesting to the desirability of CPTED as a veritable tool in residential neighbourhood crime prevention. This research is making
awakening call to developing nations, policy makers and researchers yet to embrace this concept to consider the option as its
effectiveness and efficient application would not only reduce crime but also ensure housing sustainability and promote housing
investment.
Keywords: CPTED; Crime prevention; Residential neighbourhood crime; Veracity
1. Introduction
Residential neighbourhood crime which is otherwise called
property crime comes in the forms of burglary and theft,
incivility and street crime, vandalism, robbery and violent
crimes. Its occurrence and consequence are becoming
worrisome globally (Gibbon, 2004). This might not be
unconnected with the vintage position that housing/residential
property occupies among other classes of properties like
commercial, industrial, agricultural and other institutional
properties being the only one providing living accommodation
for the populace. Also, residential neighbourhood is seen to be
susceptible to crime due to the fact that residents keep their
most valuables inside the house and to make the matter worse,
houses are left vacant for a long time within the day, week and
month as residents may have reasons to go to workplace, place
of worship, recreation, shopping and even holidays (Olajide &
Lizam, 2016) [42].
The consequence of residential neighbourhood crime is said to
be lethal (Cohen, 1990) [13] as it cuts across every activity of
man and government. For instance, residents are likely to
suffer psychological fear and a times sudden death. Also,
residential neighbourhood crime could increase the
maintenance budget of residents as there might be need to
employ additional security (human and mechanical) and
sophisticated locks. Furthermore, the residential
neighbourhood itself may suffer neighbourhood decline which
could result in negative residential mobility as well as
discouraging housing investment. In addition, residential
neighbourhood crime is found to be capable of affecting
government activities. For instance, urban incivility can make
governance problematic. It can also lead to avoidable increase
in public expenditure especially on security as there might be
need to procure more police, build additional prisons and
employ more judges.
In the recent past, researchers have criticized the
ineffectiveness of the penal system (courts, police and prisons)
in the area of crime as not meeting the expected result. Some
of the criticisms against the predominant use of the penal
system include high rate of recidivism (re-offending) which is
found to be between 50-80%, police brutality and
imprisonment are seen as hatred than correction, high cost of
maintenance, loss of lives being rampart, ‘though on crime’
risks which is encapsulated in the penal system is said to be
damaging the fabric of a democratic setting and a host of
others (Sutton, et al., 2013) [54]. Hence, researchers have since
being searching for a more flexible and citizens’ friendly
approach to residential neighbourhood crime prevention.
Essentially, Crime prevention through environmental design
(CPTED) is one of the prominent discoveries in this respect
which studies have found to be more effective (Crowe, 2000;
Cozens, 2014; Cozens & Love, 2015) [21, 16].
CPTED opines that the tactical and purposeful manipulation
of the residential neighborhood design is capable of
discouraging potential offenders to commit crime (Crowe,
2000; Cozens, 2014; Cozens & Love, 2015) [21, 16]. The key
elements of CPTED as shown in Figure 1 include access
control, surveillance, maintenance, target hardening and
territoriality among others. The intention of this article is to
test the veracity of CPTED as a veritable tool for residential
neighbourhood crime prevention through a critical review of
related empirical studies.
Hence, in line with the objective of the study, this paper
consists of five sections. Section one treats general
introduction to the study while section two presents the main
thrust of CPTED concept. The third section dwells on the
analysis of empirical studies, whereas section four presents the
data analysis and results on the strength and weakness of the
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
197
concept. Section five concludes the paper, as well as presenting the limitation of the study and further research.
Territoriality
Surrounding Environs
Image management
Activity support
Target Hardening
Access control
Surveillance
CPTED
Defensible
Space
Fig 1: Causal effect of CPTED elements on residential neighbourhood crime (Cozens & Love, 2015) [16]
2. Thrust of CPTED concept
CPTED, also known as “designing out crime” is an acronym
for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. It asserts
that ‘the proper design and effective use of the built
environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence
of crime, and an improvement in quality of life (Crowe, 2008;
Cozens, 2000). CPTED is a multi-disciplinary approach
drawing on criminology, planning and environmental
psychology, and is specifically located within the field of
environmental criminology, deriving theoretical support from
opportunity theory such as rational choice theory and routine
activity theory which is also concerned with identifying
conditions of the physical and social environment that provide
opportunities for criminality, and the modification of those
conditions in order to reduce such opportunities (Brantingham
& Faust, 1976). Its objective is to proactively prevent crime,
as compared to the reactive strategies of most criminal justice
system like police, courts and correctional facilities (Cozens &
Hillier, 2012).
Crime prevention through environmental design is not a new
concept. The phrase was coined by Jeffery (1971) but a
significant contributor to the concept of CPTED was
renowned criminologist Timothy D. Crowe, a legend in the
security industry. His book ‘Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design’ (1991), is a primary resource for
crime-prevention practitioners in the security industry to help
them in better understanding the relationship between design
and human behavior. CPTED, Perry (2013) saw as not a
reactive discipline. Rather, he described it as a proactive
approach to manipulate the physical environment and bring
about the desired behavior of reduced criminal as well as
reduced fear of crime. However, Cozens (2008) [17] saw the
emergence of CPTED as a process as it took different forms
and given different names but without much departure from
the tenets of CPTED (see Figure 2).
According to Clarke (1989) [12], the theory of crime prevention
through environmental design is based on one simple idea that
crime results partly from the opportunities presented by
physical environment. This being the case, it should be
possible to alter the physical environment so that crime is less
likely to occur. The three main elements of CPTED as
identified by Crowe (1991) include territorial reinforcement,
natural surveillance and natural access control. However,
refinement of CPTED has added several other strategies
including activity support, image/ space management and
target hardening.
Obviously, Crowe (2000) [21] posited that a number of related
concept have become confused with CPTED operation
theories and applications. Although some of these concepts
according to him overlap with CPTED, others are very
different in that they attempt to repackage and redefine the
commonsense approach of CPTED. Some of these related
concepts include: a CPTED-organised and mechanical
approach versus a natural approach; defensible space;
environmental security; security by design; natural crime
prevention; safer cities; situational crime prevention; place-
specific crime prevention and second-generation CPTED. A
good understanding of these concepts is required as they relate
to or distinct from CPTED. This is not treated as it does not fit
within the scope of this study. Commenting on the popularity,
development and acceptability of CPTED, there are enough
evidences that CPTED despite criticisms had been accepted by
governments of different nations, its agencies like Police and
Practitioners (Armitage 2013; Cozens, 2008; Labs, 1989;
Smith 1987) [23, 17].
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
198
Wood (1961) Housing Design:
A social theory
Jacobs (1961): The Death and
Life of Great American Cities
Poyner and Webb (1991)
Crime-free Housing
Coleman, (1985) Utopia on Trial
Angel (1968) Discouraging Crime
Through City Planning
Wilson and Kelling (1982) The
Broken Windows
Crowe (2000)
Crime
Prevention
Through
Environmental
Design (CPTED)
Oscar
Newman
(1973)
Defensible
Space
Jeffery (1971)
Crime
Prevention
Through
Environmental
Design
(CPTED)
Fig 2: Chronological evolution of CPTED
2.1 Elements of crime prevention through environmental
design (CPTED)
The principles of CPTED have been presented by several
authors, including, but not exclusively Poyner (1983), Cozens
et al., (2005) and Armitage (2013) [23] and adapted across
different countries to form the attributes of safe
places/environments within planning policy and guidance.
Poyner (1983) outlined the principles as surveillance,
movement control, activity support and motivational
reinforcement. Cozens, et al. (2005) extended this to include
the seven principles of defensible space, access control,
territoriality, surveillance, target hardening, image and activity
support. Armitage (2013) [23] offered yet another combination
of physical security, surveillance, movement control,
management and maintenance and defensible space. Ekblom
et al., (2012) amended these (to enhance transferability to the
United Arabs Emirate) to include: access and connectivity,
structure and spatial layout, ownership, surveillance, activity,
public image and adaptability. Montoya, et al. (2014) assess
the impact of the six principles of territoriality, surveillance,
access control, target hardening, image/maintenance and
activity support on burglary offences. Finally, Marzbali et al.,
(2016) [31] propose four primary dimensions - surveillance,
access control, territoriality and maintenance, and eight sub-
dimensions – visibility, lighting, physical barrier, security
system, markers, landscaping, front house maintenance and
back-lane maintenance. Anyone new to the subject would be
forgiven for expressing confusion. As Marzbali, et al. (2016)
[31] summarise in their study of CPTED in Malaysia, the
problem is that the terms used as CPTED components vary
from study to study. However, as will be argued later in the
section, perhaps these differences are not only to be expected,
but should be positively applauded.
Defensible space and territoriality
The term defensible space was coined by Newman (1973) who
suggested that the physical design of a neighbourhood can
either increase or inhibit people’s sense of control over the
spaces in which they reside. Newman categorized space into
public (for example, the road in front of a property), semi-
public (for example, the front garden), semi-private (for
example, the back garden) and private (inside the property).
He argued that if space is defensible, it will be clear to the
owner/user of that space, and to non-legitimate users, who
should and who should not be in this space. CPTED
interventions ensure that space is clearly demarcated, that it is
clear who has control/ownership/rights over that space and
that potential offenders have no excuse to be in that space.
Territoriality involves the human emotion/response to the
space which they define as their own. Physical responses to
territoriality might include a resident marking an area as their
own through the installation of a house sign or gate.
Emotional responses to territoriality would include a resident’s
feelings of intrusion or infringement should a person enter
what they consider to be their space. Thus, territoriality refers
to the human motivation to control the space which they
believe is theirs, be that through the legal ownership of that
space or through their adoption and management of that space.
Brown & Bentley (1993) interviewed offenders, asking them
to judge (from pictures) which properties would be more
vulnerable to burglary. The results revealed that properties
showing signs of territorial behaviour (such as the installation
of a gateway at the front of the property or a sign on the
gate/door marking the area as private) were perceived by
offenders to be less vulnerable to burglary. Montoya, et al.
(2014) also found a significant relationship between signs of
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
199
territorial responses and burglary risk, but only for daytime (as
opposed to night time) burglary offences.
The design concept of territorial reinforcement seeks to
promote notions of proprietary concern and a sense of
ownership in legitimate users of space, thereby reducing
criminal opportunities by discouraging the presence of
illegitimate users. Early CPTED ideas are now known as first-
generation CPTED, and territorial reinforcement was
considered to be the primary concept from which all the others
are derived. It includes symbolic barriers (e.g., signage, subtle
changes in road texture) and real barriers (for example, fences
or design elements that clearly define and delineate private,
semiprivate, and public spaces). Access control and
surveillance will also promote territoriality by enhancing the
levels of informal social control for legitimate users. These
strategies act in combination, to use the physical attributes to
promote opportunities for surveillance (for instance,
placement of windows); to separate public, public– private,
and private space; to define ownership (for instance, fences,
pavement treatments, signs, landscaping, and artwork); and
define acceptable patterns of usage.
Surveillance
The promotion of natural surveillance is a long-established
crime prevention strategy. Opportunities for residents to
observe the street are facilitated by the design of the street, the
location of entrances, and the placement of windows, for
example. This natural surveillance is considered as a form of
capable guardianship that can reduce crime since offenders
who perceive that they can be observed (even if they are not),
are less likely to offend, in the light of the increased potential
for intervention, apprehension, and prosecution. Other forms
of surveillance include formal or organized (e.g., police and
security patrols) and mechanical/electronic surveillance
strategies (e.g., street lighting and closed-circuit television
[CCTV]).
Furthermore, surveillance refers to the way that an area is
designed to maximise the ability of formal (security guards,
police, employees) or informal (residents, passersby,
shoppers) users of the space to observe suspicious behaviour.
These formal and informal users are referred to in routine
activity theory as capable guardians. Within situational crime
prevention, more generally, surveillance may include the
installation of CCTV or the use of formal security guards.
Within CPTED, surveillance rarely relates to formal measures
but refers more to the informal surveillance created through
measures such as ensuring that dwelling entrances face the
street, that rooms facing the street are active (such as the
kitchen or living room) and that sightlines are not obstructed
by shrubbery or high walls. Linked with territoriality, the
principle of surveillance requires users of that space to
recognise that an individual is behaving in a suspicious
manner (be that through their behaviour or simply their
presence within a private/semi-private area) and to have the
confidence to challenge them or intervene. Therefore, the term
surveillance includes the operational tasks of active (formal)
and passive (informal) surveillance, the surveillability
(Ekblom, 2011) [22] of that space and the creation of the
perception amongst offenders that they are being observed.
Research suggests that surveillance and visibility play a major
part in offenders’ decision-making processes when selecting
properties to offend against. Offenders prefer to avoid
confrontation and, where possible, select targets which are
unoccupied. Reppetto (1974) interviewed 97 convicted
burglars and found that the most common reason for avoiding
a target was that there were too many people around.
Offenders stated that the possibility of neighbours watching
them deterred them from selecting a property and that they
would select targets where they felt less conspicuous and
where there was less visual access to neighbouring properties.
In interviews with a sample of 30 active burglars, Cromwell &
Olson (1991) found that properties considered to be the most
attractive targets were those which were located within close
proximity to a stop sign, traffic lights, commercial business
establishment, park, church or four-lane street – these
properties being within the activity and awareness space of
offenders. This research also revealed that over ninety per cent
of the sample stated that they would never enter a residence
which they suspected to be occupied.
Physical security
Target hardening is often referred to as physical security and
includes the initial design, or retrofit upgrade of doors,
windows, fences and other physical structures to increase the
difficulty for offenders in entering a building or space.
Research on security measures as a means of preventing
burglary suggests that, all other factors being equal, burglars
prefer to offend against properties with lower levels of
physical security (Cromwell & Olson, 1991). Budd’s (2001)
analysis of the British Crime Survey found that security
devices are extremely effective in reducing the risk of burglary
victimization. Budd found that, in England and Wales in 1997,
15% of households without security measures were burgled,
compared to just 4% of households with basic measures in
place and 3% with higher levels of security.
Vollaard & Ours (2010) report the findings of an extensive
assessment of built-in security in the Netherlands. This study
utilises the introduction of regulatory changes in building
regulations introduced in 1999 which saw all new-build homes
required all windows and doors (for new build properties) to
be made from material certified and approved by the European
ENV 1627:1994 Class 2 standard, or the Dutch NEN 5096,
Class 2 standard. Using data from four waves of the annual
National Victimization Survey (VMR), the results revealed
that the regulatory change resulted in a reduction in burglary
(within the sample) from 1.1 to 0.8 per cent annually – a
reduction of 26 per cent. The results also revealed that the
enhancement in security within new homes resulted in
increased protection for older, less-protected homes within
close proximity of the new homes – thus suggesting a
diffusion of benefits whereby offenders are unable to
distinguish between homes protected and those which are not.
The analysis also suggested that burglary offences are not
being displaced to other property crimes such as bicycle or
vehicle theft.
Limiting access and through movement
Access control refers to the design of buildings and space to
actively keep people out. Whilst this principle has traditionally
been referred to as access control, perhaps due to its routes in
more traditional situational crime prevention measures to
restrict entry into buildings and rooms within buildings, within
CPTED the aim is much wider. What has been referred to as
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
200
access control encompasses the aims: 1) To limit the
likelihood that offenders will become aware of that area as a
potential target; 2) To make it more difficult for offenders to
navigate into, out of and within an area should they select it as
a target; 3) To increase the physical difficulty of entering a
building/space should offenders become aware of the area as a
target; 4) To increase the difficulty psychologically for
offenders to enter and move around an area without feeling
conspicuous, and 5) to remove any excuse for potential
offenders to be within a private or semi-private space and
maximise the legitimate users’ confidence in challenging non-
legitimate users of space. Given the wider aims of this
principle, access control would appear too limited a definition.
A more appropriate term might be the ‘limitation of access,
egress and through movement’. In terms of evidencing the
impact of limiting access, and through movement on crime
levels, the efficacy of this principle is less clear-cut and this is
one of the reasons why the encounter versus enclosure debate
emerged.
There are many research studies that support the first
mechanism – that offenders prefer areas with high levels of
through movement due to the ease of entry, through
movement and escape. These include the studies of Murray et
al. (2001) and Poyner & Webb (1991) [46]. The second
explanation for higher crime within permeable
neighbourhoods suggests that offenders have to be aware of a
property’s existence before they can select it as a target for
crime. As offenders spend much of their time travelling
between home, work, school or leisure activities, the
properties that they become aware of are likely to be along the
travel paths that they frequent. Wiles & Costello (2000) used
interviews with offenders, police recorded crime data and
forensic science data from the police DNA database as a
means of investigating the distance which offenders will travel
to offend. Their findings suggested that burglars are largely
opportunistic, with the selection of a particular target taking
place as they pass properties and notice their suitability. The
dominant reason given by offenders for selecting a target was
chance – with 63% of offenders giving this response.
Additional research findings which support the premise that
offenders select properties as they take part in day to day
activities include Letkemann (1973) who found that burglars
interviewed in British Columbia stated that they generally kept
their eyes open for targets all of the time. The final rationale,
that offenders prefer targets located within areas of high
pedestrian movement due to the anonymity which this
movement provides, is supported by Brantingham &
Brantingham (1995), Poyner & Webb (1991) [46] and Taylor &
Gottfredson (1987).
Image/management and maintenance
Cozens, et al. (2005) use the term ‘image’, while others have
used ‘management and maintenance’ to cover the principle of
creating buildings/spaces which are physically free from litter,
graffiti, vandalism and damage but are also areas without
stigma or a poor social reputation. It is difficult to allocate a
specific label to these concepts as image refers to a state and
management and maintenance to the activities that create that
state.
Several studies have suggested that if low-level disorder such
as vandalism and litter are not addressed, they can act as a
catalyst for more serious crimes. Skogan (1992) [53] refers to
this as the contagion theory, suggesting that the presence of
vandalism stimulates more vandalism. Wilson & Kelling
(1982) [57] referred to this contagious effect as the “broken
windows theory”. This suggests that an area with existing
deterioration such as graffiti and vandalism conveys the
impression that a) nobody cares so apprehension is less likely
and b) the area is already untidy so one more act will go
unnoticed. This is supported by Taylor & Gottfredson (1986)
who found that physical incivilities indirectly influence
offenders’ perception of risk in that they portray a resident’s
level of care or concern for the area in which they live, thus
acting as an indicator for the likelihood that they will
intervene if they detect an offence taking place.
Activity support
Activity support relates to the creation of an environment
which increases the likelihood that legitimate users will make
use of space and subsequently act as additional surveillance.
Although activity support is included by many as a distinct
principle of CPTED, the ultimate aim is to enhance
surveillance and so, the authors would argue, that the two
principles can be combined.
Transferring the principles of CPTED
Several authors have discussed the dangers of presuming that
CPTED principles can simply be transferred to different
countries without consideration for the local culture, climate
and context (Cozens & Melenhorst, 2014; Ekblom, et al.,
2013; Armitage, 2013; Reynald, 2009) [16, 23, 23]. To do so
would be to ignore the different ways in which people utilise
public and private space, design requirements and solutions to
meet the climate and culture of a region and the specific crime
risks associated with a particular location. It would never
presume that residents would use their space in the same way
in England, Abu Dhabi, Brazil, Australia, Holland and
Sweden, therefore, why should one presume that what works
to reduce crime and improve quality of life through the design
and management of the environment would transfer
seamlessly between these areas? Crime prevention solutions
cannot simply be bolted on or imposed without consideration
for local context. Because these mechanisms work through
motivating and directing the action of residents, passers-by,
offenders, they have to take into account the way that people
use their surroundings.
3. Analysis of empirical studies
Table 1 represents a collection of some empirical studies
conducted basically on the elements of crime prevention
through environmental design.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
201
Table 1: Environmental design factors and Neighbourhood crime control
S. No
Title/Author(s)
Purpose
Methodology
Result(s)
1.
Examining the effects of
crime prevention
through environmental
design (CPTED) on
residential burglary.
Marzbali, et al, 2016 [31]
To develop and validate a
hierarchical CPTED model for
urban neighbourhood and
modelling its impact on burglary
victimization.
Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) and
Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM)
CFA revealed that CPTED is a third-
order, reflective construct model with
four main dimensions: surveillance,
access control, territoriality and
maintenance. SEM supported the
theoretical findings in the literature
that associated high CPTED with low
victimization.
2.
The influence of street
lighting on crime and
fear of crime. Atkin,
et.al., 1991
To determine, as a public policy,
the effect of street lighting on
crime and fear of crime
Regression analysis
through questionnaire
survey.
The effect was found to be minimal
especially during the day time.
3.
Territorial functioning
(TF) and fear of crime.
Testing for mediation in
structural equation
modelling. Abdullah, et.
al., 2016
To examine a model that explains
the direct and indirect influences of
TF disorder and victimization on
fear of crime in a residential
neighbourhood with high crime
rate.
Use of questionnaire survey
with systematic sampling
method. Structural
Equation Modelling.
TF had a negative impact on disorder,
victimization and perceived risk.
Disorder positively influenced both
victimization and fear of crime.
Generally, TF has the capacity of
shaping fear of crime through
perception of risk.
4.
The effects of
neighbourhood
conditions on perception
of safety. Austin, et.al.,
2002
To investigate the relationship
between neighbourhood conditions
and residents’ express perception
of safety.
Regression – Structural
Equation Modelling
(SEM).
It was found that housing and
neighbourhood’s quality had an
impact on satisfaction with the local
physical environment and perceptions
of safety.
5.
Effects of Closed-
Circuit Television
(CCTV) on crime.
Welsh & Farrigton,
2003
To report findings on available
research evidence on the effects of
CCTV on crime in public space.
Secondary data based on
published studies using the
Meta-analytic technique
All the nine studies showed evidence
of a desirable effect of CCTV on
crime.
6.
Fear of crime in gated
and non-gated
residential areas.
Abdullah, et.al., 2012
To test the hypothesis that physical
environmental elements like gated
communities are believed to have
effect towards the reduction of fear
of crime.
AMOS using the
Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA). Use of
structured questionnaire.
Respondents inhabiting a gated
residential area exhibit a higher fear
of crime level when compared to
respondents living in a non-gated
residential area.
7.
Measuring crime
prevention through
environmental design in
a gated residential area:
A pilot survey. Sakip, &
Abdullah, 2012
To identify the measurement level
of CPTED component in terms of
their correlation in reducing
anxiety towards crime
Structured questionnaire
and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) through
AMOS.
Respondents who occupy individual
gated residential areas demonstrated a
higher fear of crime when compared
to their counterparts who live in non-
gated residential areas.
8.
Predicting the influence
of CPTED on perceived
neighbourhood
cohesion: Considering
differences across age.
Abdullah et.al 2013
The study investigated the
hypothesised relationships between
CPTED and perceived
neighbourhood cohesion (PNC) in
elderly and non-elderly
homeowners in Penang
Higher Order Confirmatory
Factor Analysis. SEM-
AMOS
A significant positive effect of
CPTED on the PNC scale for the
elderly respondents but not for the
non-elderly respondents.
9.
Validating crime
prevention through
environmental design
construct through
checklist using SEM
Marzbali, et. al., 2012
To validate CPTED dimensions
and its respective indicators
developed to measure the CPTED
construct
Validation using AMOS
through Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA)
The various elements of CPTED
(Natural surveillance, access control,
territoriality and external
maintenance) have influence on
residential neighbourhood security
control.
10.
CPTED and built-
environmental
manifestations in Accra
and Kumasi. Owusu, et
al., 2015
To assess the degree of
applicability of CPTED elements
in Ghanaian cities of Accra and
Kumasi
Structured interview with
Police policy makers and
practitioners. Descriptive
analysis
No direct consciousness of the
application of CPTED principles but
individual perception of
neighbourhood crime and the need to
control it.
11.
The influence of
CPTED on
victimization and fear of
crime. Marzbali, et.al.,
2012
To investigate the hypothesised
relationships between CPTED,
victimization and fear of crime
(FOC)
Checklist through on-site
observation to measure
CPTED constructs. Use of
SEM- AMOS
Significant positive direct influence
of victimization on fear of crime. No
direct significant relationship between
CPTED and FOC.. Negative indirect
relationship between CPTED and
Fear of Crime (FoC).
12.
The effectiveness of
burglary security
To measure the effectiveness of
anti-burglary security devices, both
Multi stage stratified
sampling; Use of Security
Certain combinations of security
features confer a crime reduction
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
202
devices.
Tseloni, et. al., 2014
individually and in combination.
Impact Assessment Tool
(SIAT).
advantage, but protection conferred
against burglary did not consistently
increase with the number of devices
installed.
13.
Stability and charge in
High-Tech Enterprises:
Organisational practices
and routines in London.
Costello, 2000
To provide rich analysis of the
routine of choosing high-tech
security gadgets to discourage
offenders
Interviews with offenders,
police recorded crime data
and forensic science data
from the police NDA
database
Burglars are largely opportunistic,
with the selection of a particular
target taking place as they pass
properties and notice their suitability.
Little resistance put off the
opportunist.
14.
Crime prevention
through environmenta
design in the United
Arab Emirates. A
suitable case for
Reorientation? Ekblom,
et.al., 2013 [23]
To redress the Western bias on the
application of CPTED as it focused
on its desirability in the Middle
Eastern nation of Abu Dhabi, UAE
Using Benchmarking, the
CPTED principles were
considered for local
context.
There was dearth of international and
comparative research in CPTED.
Increasing CPTED knowledge would
enable other non-Western nations to
benefit
15
Exploring community
perceptions of crime and
CPTED in Botswana.
Cozens, & Melenhorst,
2014 [16]
To investigate the application of
CPTED to a non-Western setting
in the developing world in order to
explore to what extent local
perceptions of community safety
align with the Western principles
of CPTED in Gaborone, Botswana
Use of CPTED Audit to
measure the presence or
absence of CPTED
features. Observational
analysis and photographic
documentation.
Community safety survey
The Western CPTED Audit and the
non- Western Botswana respondents
in the community safety survey both
indicated there were low level of
CPTED features in the environment
through the respondents reported high
levels of personal safety.
16
The relation between
residential property and
its surroundings and
day-and night time
residential burglary.
Montaya, et.al., 2014
To examine how residential
property and its surroundings
influence day- and night-time
residential burglary with focus on
CPTED principles
Use of Multilevel
Multinomial regression
models
That Territoriality and access control
predict day time burglary while
access control and target hardening
predict night- time burglary. That two
separate burglary prevention
frameworks are needed.
17.
Predicting and
preventing: Developing
a risk assessment
mechanism for
residential housing.
Armitage, 2006
To present a comprehensive crime
risk assessment mechanism for
crime prevention design advisors
to predict the vulnerability of
residential housing.
Burgess crime risk
assessment mechanism.
There is a link between
environmental design features and
crime within West Yorkshire.
Armitage found evidence of brief and
long-term desertion to be statistically
significantly associated with prior
burglary in a sample of 1058
properties.
18.
Disorder and Decline:
Crime and the spiral of
decay in American
neighbourhood. Skogan,
1990
To determine the relevance of
environmental management and
maintenance in Neighbourhood
crime prevention
Collection of pockets of
research in a text
Suggestion that if low-level disorder
such as vandalism and litter are not
addressed, they can act as catalyst for
more serious crimes. This connotes
“presence of vandalism stimulates
mores vandalism (p.39).
19
Deconstructing
CPTED…and
reconstructing it for
practice, knowledge
management and
research. Ekblom, 2011
[22].
The paper described the latest
stage of an on-going attempt to
update and upgrade CPTED’s
concepts and actions and link them
more closely to development in
architecture, design and crime
science.
Assessment of secondary
data on CPTED
To produce a more rigorous, yet
deeper and better-integrated
conception (CPTED) useful for
practice, research and theory alike.
20.
Crime and the design of
residential property –
exploring the
perceptions of planning
professionals, burglars
and other users (part 2).
Cozens, et. al., 2001
To investigate the perception of
planning professionals, convicted
burglars and other users and
provide both qualitative and
quantitative analyses of result from
series of interview which presented
slide representations of different
residential designs
Intensive interview and
review of literature.
Descriptive statistics
The result of the exploratory
investigation underpins Newman’s
theory of ‘defensible space’ in that a
hierarchy of place appears to exist
with regard to housing design.
From Table 1, the summary of the relationship between
environmental design and neighbourhood crime control as
encapsulated in the previous empirical works is in this order:
careful implementation of the elements of crime prevention
through environmental design (CPTED) which comprise of
access control, target hardening, territoriality, surveillance and
maintenance among others was found to be capable of
checkmating residential neighbourhood crime. Some of the
findings (Owusu, et al., 2015; Cozens & Melenhorst, 2014;
Ekbolom, et al., 2013) [16] also showed that the concept of
CPTED had been proven useful in neighbourhood crime
prevention in the developed economies like US, UK,
Australia, Asia and Europe. Whereas, in the developing
nations like Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, and the likes, the
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
203
concept was found to be strange, though residents were
conscious of the need to secure their homes from external
attacks and intruders. Hence, there is a clarion call that
international organisations like the United Nations should
support researches based on the application of CPTED
elements in the developing countries. Sequel to this, the need
for this research partly based on the application of CPTED
concept by testing its desirability.
4. Discussion on strength and weakness
In the collections of Garner Clancy on the First Generation
CPTED, Crowe (2000) [21] attempting to expatiate on the
CPTED concepts and strategies asserted that "the physical
environment can be manipulated to produce behavioural
impacts that will lessen the frequency and fear of crime,
thereby improving the quality of life". Rosenbaum, Lurigio &
Davis (1998) [49] also summarized the first generation CPTED
intentions under the following: that the physical environment
can check offences by hindering opportunities for crime by
creating obstacles or barrier to targets; change residents’
behavior to raise the likelihood that offenders will be
observed, prevented or arrested; be structured or used by
citizens to reduce crime through a surveillance enhancement,
social control and social cooperation and social union among
residents and deter the behavior of offenders by reducing
places for concealment and convenient escape routes.
Criticizing CPTED under these definitions, Shaftoe & Read
(2005) [52] believe that terms such as ‘defensible space’,
‘natural surveillance’, and ‘symbolic barrier’ are literally used
by professional as though they were established scientific
approaches. Also, they observed that it is expedient to apply a
‘designing out crime’ strategy, but that also a danger of over-
emphasizing its relevance and slipping into a design
determinist viewpoint, thereby people are seen as robots
whose behavior is wholly conditioned by the environment
they find themselves in.
Mainly, some of the criticisms against the first generation
CPTED brought about the development of second generation
CPTED which embraced four new approaches namely: social
cohesion, connectivity, community culture and threshold
capacity (Sallive & Cleveland, 2008) [51]. Though, the second
generation CPTED supports consideration of variables at the
neighbourhood level. Nevertheless, Brantingham &
Brantingham (1981) [9] have identified critical dynamics
performing at this level in their crime pattern theory. The
theory draws attention to: nodes- setting such as homes,
schools, workplaces, shopping or strip-malls, and recreation
area can provide particular crime opportunities and risks like
they argued a node that supports one type of crime might not
favour the other since specific risks differ greatly among
nodes; paths – leading from one node to another, also offering
crime opportunities and risks as not only do paths convey
more people per square foot –hence providing potential
criminals, targets and guardians- but paths drive people to
nodes that might include them in crime; and edges- places
where two local areas touch makes offence more risky place
as outsiders can trespass quickly and then disappear without
being challenged or even discerned.
However, while CPTED had received considerable attention
from government, it was to a large extent ignored by
criminologists who showed little interest in design theory.
(Bottoms & Wiles, 1988; Mawby, 1977; Reppetto, 1976) [8, 30,
48]. Clarke (1989) [12] observed that Newman’s ideas which
later transformed to CPTED did not concur with most
contemporary criminologists since criminology (particularly in
America) is an offshoot of sociology and thus social factors
are seen as most important in explaining causation. Newman
was not a social scientist and seemed ignorant of the findings
of traditional criminology. Reppetto (1976) [48] argued that
planning and architecture disciplines provided the most
committed leverage for the urban design theory. However,
given the lack of interaction between urban design theory and
criminology, it is not surprising that criminologists were
dismissive of the methods and theories employed. For
Reppetto, skepticism of CPTED by criminologists is
acceptable on a theoretical level, but it is a different thing to
simply ignore its possible policy pay-offs (Cozens, 2008) [17].
Melenhorst (2012) [35] in his work noted that there are a few
academics across criminology, urban planning, human
geography and social sciences who argue for the inherent
limitations of the physical determinism of CPTED. He further
affirms that the depoliticisation of environmental crime
prevention; the neoliberal imperialism of global design and
planning; the self-legitimization of the ‘expert’; the
indeterminacy of predicting danger and the empirical
limitations of the ‘rational’ offender; as well as the
‘fortressification’ that can result from excessive use of
CPTED. Among the ‘opponents’ of CPTED, according to
Hills (2014) are those that perceive its strategies as being
aimed at targeting or marginalizing groups such as youth or
indigenous groups, the homeless or the disadvantaged. Ramm
(2014), a CPTED practitioner believes that most of the
criticisms against CPTED are as a result of lack of adequate
education. He grouped such persons as those who assume they
know what CPTED is but in reality have no clue and that
those making assumptions often think it is about fortressing
and ugly security measures. However, Ramm (2014) [47] added
that any notion based on the expectation that CPTED is a
panacea for solving all crime is unrealistic and far beyond the
objectives of CPTED.
Parnaby is another notable opponent of CPTED based on his
two pieces of research in 2006 and 2007. Parnaby (2006) [44]
conducted a Canadian study of CPTED, where 25 individuals
interviewed were considered to be professionals and
supporters of CPTED model. Many of those who received
CPTED accreditation were ex-police officers or employed in
the private security sector. The analysis by Parnaby questioned
the guiding principles of CPTED, implying that the
assumptions were somewhat simplistic. Parnaby’s study
revealed that CPTED professionals were continually
influenced by the idea of ‘forseeable danger’, inferring that if
an area had unsafe environment or identifiable defects that
went unfixed, the consequence would unavoidably lead to
some form of criminal activity. Parnaby (2006) [45] therefore
critically noted that (i) CPTED professionals see the cause of
crime one-dimensional because of the use of word such as
certainty (prevention) as opposed to probability (reduction)
when prognosticating crime, which results in crime being
provoked by poorly designed environment, such methods, he
claimed could lead to other programmes being overlooked; (ii)
thinking this way separates people into two groups:
responsible citizens and criminals, and the separation of
‘good’ and ‘bad’ people, according to Parnaby, is probably
established on social stereotype based on what people think
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
204
about race, socio-economic status, and gender by the
exclusion of certain types of persons from certain
neighbourhoods; and (iii) CPTED professionals wooing their
clients into becoming willing associates as they made it seem
that risk management was an individual’s moral, civic and
ethical responsibility, claiming that personal safety is also an
individual’s ability which he declared could make the strategy
lead to vigilantism. Parnaby (2007) [45] principally dwelled on
the financial hardship that the concept and theory of CPTED
can put on its implementers.
Clarke (2005) [11] responding to the critics of situational crime
prevention, which principles are embedded in CPTED
identified and addressed seven points which he referred to as
misconceptions to include: overly simplistic and theoretical;
possibility of displacing crime and making it worse; diverted
attention from the underlying causes of crime; its
conservativeness and managerial approach to crime;
promotion of selfish, exclusionary society; restriction of
personal freedom; and its attempt to put all blames on the
victim. He identified among others ‘diffusion of benefits’ as
an antidote to crime displacement.
Other criticisms leveled against CPTED include absence of
social cohesion within the residential neighbourhoods; no
long-term results, most existing built neighbourhood were not
planned with CPTED in mind, and alteration would be costly
if at all practicable; displacement of crime weakens its general
effectiveness; its resistance to change; lack of adequate
acknowledgement of CPTED by environmental designers,
land managers and individual community members thereby
calling for community educational programmes; the
controversy in the use of ‘Designing’ out crime whether it
exclusively mean ‘architectural an planning term’ or ‘to
eliminate’; CPTED seems to be discriminatory as concepts
like gated community and secured by design though
sometimes mentioned but are yet to be incorporated as part of
CPTED (Casteel & Peek-Asa, 2000; Moffat, 1983; O’Grady,
2011; Foucault, 1988; Flvberg, et al., 2002; Nussbaum, 2010;
Marzbali, et al., 2011) [10, 36, 40, 25, 39].
5. Conclusion
This paper was able to expatiate on the main thrust of the
concept (CPTED), and effort was intensified to appraise the
efficiency and applicability of the technique. However, the
concept was not without a number of weaknesses and
criticisms as already highlighted but the general assessment
showed that CPTED is a reliable tool in the area of residential
neighbourhood crime prevention. Apart from the empirical
studies supporting this position, there were enough proofs that
the strategy had been successfully put into application in the
Western countries in US, Europe, Australia and Asia (Cozens
& Melenhorst, 2014) [16]. A clarion call is therefore being
made to governments, policy makers, professionals and
researchers especially in the developing nations to consider
the strategy if not as an alternative, as a supplement to
residential neighbourhood crime prevention so as to
checkmate the soaring trend of the social menace (RNC) in
consideration to its devastating consequences as already
mentioned.
As a matter of fact, a tenacious application of the principles of
CPTED is capable of enhancing housing sustainability; ensure
smooth governance; enhancing housing investment and
boosting the national economy. Essentially the scope of the
research did not extend to testing empirically the influence of
each of the elements of CPTED (access control, surveillance,
maintenance, target hardening and territoriality among others)
on residential neighbourhood crime. This was however
recommended for future research.
6. References
1. Abdullah A, Marzbali MH, Ramayah T, Bahauddin A,
Tilaki MJM. Territorial functioning and fear of crime:
Testing for mediation in structural equation
modeling. Security Journal. 2016; 29(3):461-484.
2. Abdullah A, Marzbali MH, Tilaki MJM. Predicting the
influence of CPTED on perceived neighbourhood
cohesion: Considering differences across age. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 2013; 36:54-64.
3. Abdullah A, Salleh MNM, Sakip SRM. Fear of crime in
gated and non-gated residential areas. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 35:63-69.
4. Angel S. Discouraging crime through city planning.
(Paper No. 75). Berkeley, CA: Center for planning and
development research, University of California at
Berkeley, 1968.
5. Armitage R. Predicting and preventing: developing a risk
assessment mechanism for residential housing. Crime
Prevention & Community Safety. 2006; 8(3):137-149.
6. Atkins S, Husain S, Storey A. The influence of street
lighting on crime and fear of crime. London: Home
Office, 1991.
7. Austin DM, Furr LA, Spine M. The effects of
neighborhood conditions on perceptions of safety. Journal
of criminal justice. 2002; 30(5):417-427.
8. Bottoms A, Wales P. Crime and Housing Policy: A
framework for Crime Prevention: In T. Hope and M.
Shaw (eds) Community and Crime Reduction, London.
HMSO, 1988.
9. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL. (Eds.). Environmental
criminology Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1981,
27-54.
10. Casteel C, Peek-Asa C. Effectiveness of crime prevention
through environmental design (CPTED) in reducing
robberies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
2000; 18(4S):99-115.
11. Clarke RV. Seven misconceptions of situational crime
prevention from handbook of crime prevention and
community safety. 2005, Nick Tilley, ed- NCJ - 214069),
2005, 39-70.
12. Clarke RV. Theoretical Background to Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Situational
Prevention. Paper presented at the Designing Out Crime:
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) convened by the Australian Institute of
Criminology and NRMA Insurance and held at the Hilton
Hotel, Sydney, 1989.
13. Cohen MA. A note on the cost of crime to victims. Urban
Studies. 1990; 27(1):139-146.
14. Coleman A. Utopia on Trial ± Vision and Reality in
Planned Housing, Hilary Shipman Ltd, London, 1985.
15. Costello N. Stability and Change in High-Tech
Enterprises: Organisational Practices in Small to Medium
Enterprises. Routledge, 2013.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
205
16. Cozens P. Think crime! Using evidence, theory and crime
prevention through environmental design (CPTED) for
planning safer cities. Perth, WA: Praxis Education, 2014.
17. Cozens PM. Crime prevention through environmental
design’ In: environmental criminology and crime
analysis, (eds) Richard Wortley and Lorraine Mazerolle,
Devon, UK, 2008, 153-194.
18. Cozens P, Hillier D, Prescott G. Crime and the design of
residential property-exploring the theoretical background-
Part 1. Property management. 2001; 19(2):136-164.
19. Cozens P, Love T. A review and current status of crime
prevention through environmental design
(CPTED). Journal of Planning Literature. 2015;
30(4):393-412.
20. Cozens P, Melenhorst P. Exploring community
perceptions of crime and crime prevention through
environmental design (CPTED) in Botswana. In Papers
from the British Criminology Conference. 2014; (14):65-
83. http://www.britsoccrim.org/
21. Crowe TD. Crime prevention through environmental
design: Applications of architectural design and space
management concepts. Revised by Lawrence J. Fennelly.
Butterworth-Heinemann. First printed in, 1991-2000.
22. Ekblom P. Deconstructing CPTED and reconstructing it
for practice, knowledge management and
research. European Journal on Criminal Policy and
Research. 2011; 17(1):7-28.
23. Ekblom P, Armitage R, Monchuk L, Castell B. Crime
prevention through environmental design in the United
Arab Emirates: a suitable case for reorientation?. Built
Environment. 2013; 39(1):92-113.
24. Flyvbjerg B, Richardson T, Allmendinger IP, Tewdwr-
Jones M. Planning and Foucault. Planning futures: New
directions for planning theory, 2002, 44-63.
25. Foucault M. The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of
Freedom. In The Final Foucault, eds. J Bernauer and D.
Rasmussen. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988.
26. Gibbons S. The costs of urban property crime. The
Economic Journal. 2004; 114(499):F441-F463.
27. Hills J. Opponents of CPTED’ Public Discussion on
International CPTED Association (ICA), 2014.
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/CPTED.Opponents.
(Accessed 15th December, 2014).
28. Jacobs J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
New York: Random House, 1961.
29. Jeffery CR. Crime prevention through environmental
design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1971.
30. Mawby RI. Defensible Space: A Theoretical and
Empirical Appraisal. Urban Studies. 1977; 14(2):169-179.
31. Marzbali MH, Abdullah A, Ignatius J, Tilaki MJM.
Examining the effects of crime prevention through
environmental design (CPTED) on Residential
Burglary. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice.
2016; 46(1):86-102.
32. Marzbali MH, Abdullah A, Razak NA, Tilaki MJM. The
influence of crime prevention through environmental
design on victimisation and fear of crime. Journal of
environmental psychology. 2012; 32(2):79-88.
33. Marzbali MH, Abdullah A, Razak NA, Tilaki MJM.
Validating crime prevention through environmental
design construct through checklist using structural
equation modelling. International Journal of Law, Crime
and Justice. 2012; 40(2):82-99.
34. Marzbali MH, Abdullah A, Razak NA, Tilaki MJM. A
review of the effectiveness of crime prevention by design
approaches towards sustainable development. Journal of
Sustainable Development. 2011; 4(1):160.
35. Melenhorst P. Designing out crime in Botswana: the
alignment of community perceptions of crime with
CPTED principles in a non-western context. Being M.Sc.
thesis submitted to the Department of urban and Regional
Planning, Curtin University of Technology, Melbourne,
2012.
36. Moffat R. Crime prevention through environmental
design - a management perspective", Canadian Journal of
Criminology. 1983; 25(4):19-31.
37. Montoya L, Junger M, Ongena Y. The relation between
residential property and its surroundings and day-and
night-time residential burglary. Environment and
behavior. 2016; 48(4):515-549.
38. Newman O. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through
Urban Design. New York: Macmillan, 1973.
39. Nussbaum B. Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism?
2010. http://www.fastcodesign.com/
1661859/ishumanitarian-design-the-new- imperialism
(accessed December 14, 2014).
40. O'Grady W. Crime in Canadian Context: Debates and
Controversies. (2nd ed.) ON: Oxford University Press,
2011.
41. Olajide SE, Lizam M, Adewole A. Towards a crime-free
Housing: CPTED versus CPSD. Journal of Environment
and Earth Science. 2015; 5(18):53-63.
42. Olajide SE, Lizam M. Gated Communities and Property
Fencing: A response to Residential Neighbourhood
Crime. British Journal of Education, Society and
Behavioural Science. 2016; 13(3):1-9.
43. Owusu G, Wrigley-Asante C, Oteng-Ababio M, Owusu
AY. Crime prevention through environmental design
(CPTED) and built-environmental manifestations in
Accra and Kumasi, Ghana. Crime Prevention &
Community Safety. 2015; 17(4):249-269. .
44. Parnaby P. Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design: Discourses of Risk, Social Control and a Neo-
liberal Context. In Canadian Journal of Criminology and
Criminal Justice. 2006; 48(1):1-29.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ccj/summary/v048/48.1parna
by.html (accessed December, 14, 2014)
45. Parnaby P. Crime prevention through environmental
design: financial hardship, the dynamics of power and the
prospects of governance. In Crime Law Society Change.
2007; 48:73-85.
http://www.springerlink.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/conte
nt/ (accessed December 14, 2014).
46. Poyner B, Webb B. Crime Free Housing, Butterworth
Architecture, Oxford, 1991.
47. Ramm B. Opponents of CPTED Public Discussion on
International CPTED Association (ICA), 2014.
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/CPTED.Opponents.
(Accessed 15th December, 2014).
48. Reppetto T. Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Policy – A critique. American Behavioral Scientist. 1976;
20:275-88.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development
206
49. Rosenbaum DP, Lurigio AJ, Davis RC. The prevention of
crime: Social and situational strategies. West/Wadsworth
Pub, 1998.
50. Sakip SRM, Abdullah A. Measuring crime prevention
through environmental design in a gated residential area:
A pilot survey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.
2012; 42:340-349.
51. Saville G, Cleveland G. Second-generation CPTED: The
rise and fall of opportunity theory. 21st Century Security
and CPTED. 2008, 79-90.
52. Shaftoe H, Read T. Planning Out Crime: The Application
of Science or an Act of Faith?. In: Tilley, N., ed.
Handbook for Crime prevention and Community Safety.
Willan Publishing, 2005, 248.
53. Skogan WG. Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral
of decay in American neighborhoods. Univ of California
Press, 1992-2005.
54. Sutton A, Cherney A, White R. Crime prevention:
Principles, perspectives and practices. Port Melbourne,
Victoria: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
55. Tseloni A, Thompson R, Grove L, Tilley N, Farrell G.
The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security
Journal. 2014, 1-19.
56. Welsh BC, Farrington DP. Effects of closed-circuit
television on crime. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science.
2003; 587(1):110-135.
57. Wilson JQ, Kelling GL. The police and neighbourhood
safety. Broken windows, the Atlantic monthly. 1982;
3:29-38.
58. Wood E. Housing Design: A Social Theory. New York:
Citizens, Housing and Planning Council of New York Inc,
1961.
