Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
This book oers a comprehensive overview of areas with elevated levels
of crime, which we consider ‘risky places.’ These can be facilities, nodes,
or paths and can be found everywhere, from small towns to megacities.
Crime and fear are examined from the perspective of those who use these
places, based on examples from the US, the UK, Sweden, Nigeria, Brazil,
China, Australia, and more. Advocating for a systems thinking approach,
the book shows what can be learned from risky places and identifies ways
to address their inherent problems. The book also assesses current barriers
to applying systems thinking and identifies ways to foster interconnected
long-term crime prevention strategies that meet the diverse needs of
multiple stakeholders. Aimed at academics, students, and professionals in
urban planning, criminology, geography, and related fields, this book is
a vital resource for those dedicated to creating safer, more inclusive, and
sustainable environments.
Vania Ceccato is Professor at the Department of Urban Planning and
Environment, School of Architecture and the Built Environment in
Stockholm, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Andy Newton is Professor of Criminology and Policing at Nottingham
Trent University, Nottingham, UK. He is a co-director of the cross-
disciplinary strategic research theme Safety and Sustainability.
SYSTEMS THINKING FOR
SUSTAINABLE CRIME
PREVENTION
“This book provides an important advancement in sustainable crime pre-
vention in risky places. The authors ask the reader to look at risky places
within the context of the surrounding complex systems that make up the
local, regional and larger areas as well as the actors that shape what occurs.
Each chapter in the book is of great value but, as a whole, it brings crimi-
nologists, geographers, psychologists, urban planners, architects, soci-
ologists and government ocials closer together in advancing safety and
reducing risk.”
Patricia Brantingham, Professor of Computational Criminology,
Simon Fraser University, Canada
“Through a systems thinking approach, the authors explore the inter-
connected nature of risky places and the socio-spatial contexts in which
they are located to understand the challenges and opportunities for more
appropriate intervention. They oer new ways to analyze the complex
dynamics giving rise to crime in specific areas and propose a framework
for applying systems thinking to study and intervene in risky places. The
book oers a valuable lens and tool towards safer and more sustainable
human settlements.”
Karina Landman, Professor, Department of Town and Regional
Planning, University of Pretoria, South Africa
“Through their wide-ranging and stimulating treatment of risky places,
the two internationally leading authors of this book show why it is
now necessary and appropriate to build a systems perspective onto two
well-established approaches to safety and security. Situational crime pre-
vention first emerged as a successful field of research and practice by isolat-
ing itself from traditional criminological domains of societal structure and
oender motivation. CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design) arose as a school of practice within architecture. The authors show
how to treat situations and built environments both urban and rural via
a wider and deeper systems-level analysis. Systems thinking promises to
guide understanding, intervention, practical implementation, and evalua-
tion in this complex domain involving many diverse stakeholders at vari-
ous geographical scales. It also enables us to merge security goals creatively
and rigorously with those of sustainability and other beneficial outcomes.”
Paul Ekblom, Emeritus Professor, Design Against Crime Research
Lab, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London;
Visiting Professor, Department of Security & Crime Science,
University College London and Applied Criminology & Policing
Centre, University of Huddersfield, United Kingdom
SYSTEMS THINKING FOR
SUSTAINABLE CRIME
PREVENTION
Planning for Risky Places
Vania Ceccato and Andy Newton
Designed cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2025
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2025 Vania Ceccato and Andy Newton
The right of Vania Ceccato and Andy Newton to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections
77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.
com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Any third party material in this book is not included in the OA
Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. Please direct any permissions enquiries to the original
rightsholder.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
ISBN: 978-1-032-24985-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-24986-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-28103-0 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003281030
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
This book is dedicated to all those who intentionally
work to make a safer and more sustainable world.
Funding Statement
We gratefully acknowledge the support of Olle Engkvists Stiftelse, who
facilitated the open access publication of this book. Their financial
assistance covered the open access fees, ensuring that this work is freely
accessible to a global audience.
CONTENTS
List of Figures x
List of Tables xiii
About the Authors xiv
Preface xvi
Acknowledgments xvii
1 Introducing Risky Places for Crime 1
2 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 21
3 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 40
4 Identifying Risky Facilities 68
5 Analyzing Risky Nodes 85
6 Unraveling Risky Paths and Journeys 110
7 Discovering Opportunities for Actions in Risky Places 134
8 Re-Framing Methods for Systems Thinking for Risky Places 154
9 Exemplifying the Governance of Risky Places 184
10 Activating Systems Thinking for Sustainable Crime Prevention 209
Author Index 228
Subject Index 231
FIGURES
2.1 Networks of place control that extend to larger
areas of cities. 26
3.1 Facilities, nodes, paths, and nodes that are risky in an
interconnected urban system. 43
3.2 Central Places Theory market principle. 47
3.3 Drive-time cohorts around police stations in Southern
Sweden (A) and the spatial arrangement of police services
following the nodes of CPT-like structure (B). 48
3.4 The city image and its elements. 50
3.5 The crime triangle by Clarke and Eck (2003). 51
3.6 Brantingham’s hypothetical model of the intersection
ofcriminal opportunities with oenders’ cognitive
awareness space. 52
4.1 Concentration of violent incidents in bars in Cincinnati,
USA, 2005. 71
4.2 Crime concentration in and around Stockholm’s libraries,
all outdoors police registered oenses 2019–2020. 72
5.1 Clusters of subway stations perceived as unsafe by selected
groups of respondents: women, foreign-born, youth, and elderly. 91
5.2 Satellite image and crime density map showing the area
surrounding the football stadium and metro station in
SãoPaulo, Brazil. 93
5.3 Safety incidents in a shopping center in Stockholm,
Sweden, 2017. N = 5,010, 86% of events were mapped
out of 5,768. 98
Figures xi
5.4 Shootings in NYC public housing in relation to NYC’s
average (a). More than 100 cases of gun violence in small
areas in NYC public housing (b). 100
5.5 Overlap of declared unsafe places of trac-related
incidents and crime according to students on the university
campuses in South China, N = 798. 102
6.1 Possible urban mobility patterns. 112
6.2 Risky streets and knife crime. 115
6.3 (a) Activity paths and crimes in risky settings over the day;
(b) paths in space-time prism with space-time path of an
adolescent on a Monday; and (c) number of hours spent in
settings by types of kids in Peterborough, UK. 119
6.4 Hot routes: Crime on Bus Routes in Merseyside, 2001–2003. 120
6.5 Rapes on the path back home: 60% of outdoor
rapes happen within 2 km of victims’ residences in
Stockholm,Sweden. 123
6.6 Understanding criminal networks. 125
7.1 Barriers to sustainable approaches for crime prevention. 135
7.2 Timeline of interventions and evaluation. 142
7.3 The progression from the initial problem through the
“quick fix” to the unsustainable growth. 144
7.4 Escalation in extreme competitive behavior and
gang violence. 145
7.5 Meadows’s example of a policy-resistant system with
conflicting goals. 148
8.1 Example of Kernel density estimation (KDE) of poorly
parked bikes around risky nodes in Stockholm, before and
after stay-home orders. BP = Before pandemic restrictions
(a) and PP = After pandemic restrictions (b). 159
8.2 Crime transmission in and around São Paulo metro
stations, Brazil. 160
8.3 Temporal robbery patterns over the 168-hour week. 161
8.4 Homicides space-time clusters in São Paulo, Brazil, by
season using Kulldor’s scan test (significant at 99%). 163
8.5 An example of the analysis using geodata from the
perceived safety survey around a metro station in
Stockholm, Sweden. 170
8.6 (a) Virtual safety walks to test security solutions in
Finland. (b) Virtual reality in a subway station testing
lighting conditions for visually impaired travelers. 176
8.7 Making Fitja center safer in Minecraft, according to young
girls who felt unsafe. 179
TABLES
2.1 Cities as complex systems: key features. 30
2.2 Conventional versus systems thinking. 33
2.3 Elements, interconnections, and function/purpose of a
system and its subsystems. 35
5.1 Characteristics of the stations, neighborhood
surroundings, and city context. 90
8.1 General Problem-Solving Matrix (GPSM) applied to an
o-campus burglary reduction project. 168
8.2 Impact of measures in risky places and risks against the
2030 sustainable goals. 173
9.1 Approaches in situational crime prevention. 199
9.2 Actor responses: A Systems Thinking analysis of urban
scooter (mis)use. 202
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Vania Ceccatois Professor at the Department of Urban Planning and Envi-
ronment, School of Architecture and the Built Environment in Stockholm,
Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Previously, she was a research asso-
ciate at the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology, UK, and a
young visiting scholar at IIASA, the International Institute for Applied Sys-
tems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, known for its interdisciplinary and
applied systems analysis addressing global issues. Her career also includes
a master’s degree from INPE, the National Institute for Space Research in
Brazil, following her graduation from São Paulo State University. In her
research, Ceccato investigates the connections between the environment,
crime, and perceived safety, with a focus on the intersectionality of safety.
Her work integrates environmental criminology with urban planning,
architecture, and engineering, collaborating globally with scholars across
these disciplines. She has authored numerous articles and books showcas-
ing her expertise in geography, criminology, urban planning, and GIS and
spatial data analysis. Professor Ceccato is the head of the UCS—Urban &
Community Safety Research Group and leads the Network Safe Places,
fostering collaboration between researchers and practitioners to enhance
safety, social inclusion, and sustainability.
Andy Newtonis Professor of Criminology and Policing at Nottingham Trent
University, Nottingham, UK. He is a co-director for the cross-disciplinary
strategic research theme Safety and Sustainability. His research interests
focus on the intersection of crime, people, and space. More specifically,
he is interested in crime and policing as it relates to transport, technology,
About the Authors xv
intelligent mobility, and crime; acquisitive crime; policy analysis and evalu-
ation; problem-solving and evidence-based policing; and data science and
crime analysis. He is widely published in the field of crime and place and
has generated substantial external income to support his research. Pro-
fessor Newton’s contributions to society extend significantly beyond aca-
demia through his dedication to understanding and improving the interplay
between crime, policing, and the environment, and he currently serves as
an academic advisor for the Steering Board of the Nottingham Violence
Reduction Partnership.
PREFACE
Amidst the pandemic, we organized and hosted 20 online webinars from
January to November 2021. This sparked international discussions about
risky places, engaging criminologists, urban planners, and safety experts
from academia and practice. Recognizing the need for a comprehensive
framework to study these high-crime areas, the importance of not only
understanding but also intervening in these spaces became evident. Through-
out our exploration of these places, a distinct need arose. We needed a
theoretical foundation to facilitate the connection between safety and sus-
tainability. This book aims to address these two pressing issues, providing
insights and strategies for understanding and intervening in risky places.
We draw from our own research and reflect on our collaborations with
academia, communities, and practice over a period of 20-plus years. We
have studied stations, parks, paths, and other risky places in dierent cities
and country contexts. After reflection and considerable head-scratching,
this book advocates for a paradigm shift by adopting systems thinking for
crime prevention at risky places. This approach recognizes the intercon-
nectedness of a system’s multiple parts and provides a transformative per-
spective for environmental criminology, urban planning, and other related
fields. Our analysis in this book challenges the conventional, localized situ-
ational crime prevention approaches that often fail to achieve long-term
sustainable prevention. By promoting a broader debate on integrated strat-
egies, we oer an introduction to systems thinking for those committed to
enhancing urban safety and sustainability.
Vania Ceccato and Andy Newton
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are deeply grateful to the individuals and organizations that played cru-
cial roles in bringing Systems Thinking for Sustainable Crime Prevention:
Planning for Risky Places to life.
The seminar series on risky places for crime, held in 2021, was a sig-
nificant source of inspiration. It featured insightful lectures from globally
recognized experts on crime, place, and risk, complemented by the innova-
tive contributions of early career researchers focusing on crime in various
individual risk settings. The engaging discussions and valuable feedback
we received from participants were instrumental in shaping our work.
We also wish to express our appreciation for the unwavering support of
our colleagues in academic departments across Sweden and the UK. Spe-
cial thanks go to the two universities in the United States—MIT (Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology) and UCLA (University of California, Los
Angeles)—where Vania enjoyed a fruitful sabbatical from August 2023 to
January 2024. Your encouragement and the resources you provided were
essential in enabling us to conduct our research and complete our writing.
We express our deepest appreciation to Routledge for their collaboration
in bringing this book to fruition. Their commitment to scholarly work and
dedication to advancing knowledge have been instrumental in the realiza-
tion of this project. Our gratitude extends to the academic and institutional
support that made this project possible.
We are extremely grateful to the Swedish Olle Engkvist Foundation,
whose generous funding has enabled us to cover the open-access fee for this
book. Their commitment was essential in making this book freely available
to all.
xviii Acknowledgments
We express gratitude to our colleagues from ECCA (Environmental
Criminology and Crime Analysis), particularly those who participated in
the conference in Stockholm in June 2023. Naming all would be lengthy,
but we sincerely appreciate all those who share our research interests. Your
support has inspired us and given relevance to our own work.
On a special note, we would like to thank you, Folke Snickars, Paul
Ekblom, Karina Landman, and Patricia Brantingham, for taking the time
to review our initial drafts. You oered insightful comments and caught
errors we missed. We deeply appreciate your support and knowledge. We
alone are responsible for any remaining errors.
We extend our deepest appreciation to our family and friends for their
unwavering support throughout this journey. Recognizing the significance
of our work, we dedicate the book to our families (Vania dedicates it to
Anders, Filip, Amanda, and extended family in Brazil, and Andy dedicates
it to Laura, Oli, and Isi). Your invaluable encouragement and patience have
been a cornerstone of our eorts.
Vania Ceccato and Andy Newton
DOI: 10.4324/9781003281030-1
This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY 4.0 license
1.1 Introduction and Aim
The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes
the multifaceted nature of urban challenges. This underscores crime and
the fear of crime as significant threats to urban sustainability (UN-Habitat,
2019). Across the globe, we find places that are ‘risky,’ with higher lev-
els of crime than other nearby locations. This holds true for small towns,
urban municipalities, and megacities. These risky places demand tailored
interventions that integrate crime prevention within broader safety and
sustainability strategies.
This book focuses on ‘risky places,’ which are settings that draw dis-
proportionately high levels of crime in relative and absolute terms. How-
ever, these places are vibrant hubs where diverse communities converge
and cultural hubs for urban life (Gehl, 1987). They are unique settings,
oering a range of dierent experiences for those who live, work, visit,
or travel through them. This book explores ways to better understand the
nuances of crime at risky places and how crime prevention eorts can be
integrated into wider safety and sustainability plans. These should con-
sider socio-economic, environmental, and political processes that shape
their futures in a world marked by globalization, digital technology, and
climate change.
Contemporary safety challenges demand a set of abilities and exper-
tise that extend beyond what is traditionally expected from professions,
emphasizing the need for a broader spectrum of skills to understand and
address crime in risky places. We contend that current knowledge of the
1
INTRODUCING RISKY PLACES
FORCRIME
2 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
context of crime in risky places is not suciently formulated to develop
sustainable crime prevention approaches. Situational approaches to crime
prevention involve modifying specific environmental conditions to reduce
opportunities for crime. These approaches possess many qualities and have
demonstrated successful reductions in risky places, at least in the short
term. However, concerns have been raised about the potential for situ-
ational crime prevention to result in crime displacement (Guerette & Bow-
ers, 2017). Moreover, situational crime prevention tends to be excessively
localized and does not demonstrate long-term impact. The problem or nar-
rowly focused interventions are also recognized in problem-solving models
for crime prevention and policing (Borrion et al., 2020; Lamont, 2021).
Moreover, situational crime prevention approaches rarely oer a compre-
hensive understanding of the system they are part of and neglect to involve
a range of dierent users adequately. There have been previous calls for a
more in-depth discussion of these challenges by previous research; see, for
instance, Ekblom, 1990; Tilley, 1993; Clarke & Weisburd, 1994; Welsh &
Farrington, 2009.
Systems thinking recognizes these shortcomings and compares a particu-
lar problem to the multilevel dynamics of the whole system. It acknowl-
edges that a system’s performance depends on how the parts of the system
fit together (Meadows, 2008). A novelty of this book is that, informed by
systems thinking, we define pathways to address the existing challenges
associated with conventional situational crime prevention approaches and
develop more sustainable interconnected approaches to reduce crime in
risky places.
Applying systems thinking to situational crime prevention involves
understanding the nature of systems and identifying interconnections
between their component parts. This approach calls for a shared under-
standing of crime and safety problems and acknowledges that conventional
prevention eorts only realize short-term outcomes. When organizations
focus solely on their own priorities without considering the broader impact
on the whole system, this will hinder eective problem-solving. Systems
thinking encourages self-reflection and establishes a common language
for communication (Meadows, 2008). In the context of crime prevention,
where disjointed initiatives often lack coordination, systems thinking can
guide and promote continuous learning and engage relevant practitioners
and users.
Systems thinking aligns with the complexities inherent to contempo-
rary globalized city dynamics, which require a confluence of knowledge
on housing, transportation infrastructures, technology, and other research
areas about people and their activities. Adopting systems thinking for
crime prevention at risky places is a basic condition that must align with
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 3
the mechanisms of ‘sustainability transitions.’ These are the “processes of
long-term structural change towards more sustainable societal systems.
They include profound changes in ways of doing, thinking, and organ-
izing, as well as underlying institutions and values” (European Environ-
ment Agency, 2024). Unlike conventional approaches that may treat these
changes in isolation, systems thinking acknowledges the interconnections
within systems. It is the convergence of these socio-economic factors, cul-
tural influences, and environmental conditions at risky places that influ-
ence the manifestation of crime. We find these in the Global North and the
Global South, as well as in areas on the rural-urban continuum, namely
those places that vary in their potential for crime due to geographical loca-
tion and particular characteristics. These areas on the rural-urban con-
tinuum are important because, in a globalized world, these places may
be hybrid, in other words, ‘rural’ in some respects and ‘urban’ in others
(Ceccato & Abraham, 2022). Thus, the adoption of systems thinking, as
articulated in this book, may hold profound implications for environmen-
tal criminology and other related disciplines such as urban and regional
planning, geography, sociology, policing, and others devoted to the sus-
tainability of places.
Aims
This book has two aims. The first goal is to investigate the nuances and
nature of crime in risky places. We examine the characteristics of these
places, for example, bars, train stations, or transport corridors, and iden-
tify similarities and key dierences for each type of risky place. However,
local context matters, and these risky places do not exist in isolation from
their surrounding environments. They are linked to nearby places and ele-
ments of a broader system of which they are part. This may extend to other
parts of the town or city but can also be influenced by national and global
factors, perhaps best exemplified by the physical and cyber world interac-
tion. We, therefore, seek to better understand risky places for crime by
unraveling the contexts and systems in which these places are embedded.
A further goal is to advocate for systems thinking to foster a longer-term
approach to understanding risky places. To achieve this, traditional con-
cepts of ‘boundaries’ need to be reframed, away from ‘target and control
areas’ to hierarchical and nested boundaries (Chapter 2) that are embedded
within multiple scales. Approaches should consider the voices of dierent
users or risky places, including women, older adults, LGBQTI+, people
with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations. We also need to con-
sider the goals of practitioners who develop interventions to prevent crime
at these risky places and to what extent these are shared or in conflict. We
4 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
can never know all parts of a system (Meadows, 2008), but by using sys-
tems thinking, we seek to identify key leverage points. These are the points
in a system where coordinated changes sustained over time will produce
the greatest level of system change, in this case, sustainable crime preven-
tion and increased feelings of safety.
1.2 Why Are Risky Places Important?
As highlighted earlier, a risky place for crime constitutes a setting with dis-
proportionately high levels of crime. These areas frequently serve as bus-
tling urban hubs, drawing crowds for various activities and purposes, and
can be found in places beyond large metropolitan cities. All of this points
to a need to better understand their problems.
Knowing where crimes are more likely to occur helps allocate resources.
Police can focus their eorts on areas with more problems and target daily
patrol services to more specific areas, consequently producing less car-
bon emissions, and cities can become more sustainable. Cities can invest
in infrastructure improvements and community programs where they are
most needed to support vulnerable groups, thus improving overall safety
conditions but with a focus on those most aected by crime and poor
safety perceptions.
Another motivation is that areas with concentrations of crime often
overlap with other social problems, such as poor infrastructure and poor
health. Thus, investing in solutions to address criminogenic conditions in
risky places means we are also investing in social justice and equity. Engag-
ing communities in crime prevention eorts can leverage local knowledge
and foster a collective sense of responsibility for safety and well-being for
groups that are more exposed to victimization or suer from the impact of
fear of crime.
Moreover, areas on the rural-urban continuum can also benefit from this.
The need for planning outside of metropolitan areas is evidenced by ongo-
ing global debates about the future of rural areas (Gallent & Gkartzios,
2019; Yarwood, 2023). Interventions might go beyond increasing the num-
ber of police ocers, for example, improving infrastructure such as roads
and lighting, enhancing communication networks, supporting schools,
and providing recreational and social spaces. These may foster community
cohesion, deter crime, and increase safety perceptions. These interventions
are not necessarily focused on crime prevention in the short run but can,
in the longer term, be important for sustainability. In a globalized world,
problems in risky places demand extensions to our analytical boundaries,
from local to global, from case-based to multi-scale, and to consider inter-
connected relationships.
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 5
Finally, understanding risky places for crime is important for research
and education. Studying risky places for crime contributes to a wider aca-
demic understanding of many disciplines, for example, criminology, soci-
ology, public policy, urban planning, architecture, psychology, geography,
computer science, and engineering. Evidence from these fields can enrich
our knowledge of risky places and guide policy experts in planning tar-
geted crime reduction and community-strengthening strategies. With mod-
ern communication platforms facilitating blended learning, new platforms
have emerged to bridge the gap between researchers and practitioners.
Webinars and online lectures can unite experts and benefit diverse audi-
ences. For example, in 2021, we held a series of webinars organized by the
authors on behalf of KTH, the Royal Institute of Technology and academic
host of the ‘Safeplaces’ network in Sweden, and Nottingham Trent Univer-
sity in the UK. These webinars convened a diverse group of speakers and
audiences to discuss risky places for crime (https://bit.ly/Risky_places). A
recurring theme throughout these discussions was the demand for com-
prehensive theoretical frameworks to analyze such risky places. This book
represents an eort to respond to those calls, which were also identified at
the International Symposium on Environmental Criminology and Crime
Analysis (ECCA) in Stockholm in June 2023 (https://www.sakraplatser.
abe.kth.se/ecca-2023/).
Addressing crime and fear of crime in risky places requires a multifac-
eted approach that combines law enforcement, community engagement,
urban and community planning, and social policy. In the next section, we
demonstrate the need for a dierent approach to addressing underlying
problems in risky places. We suggest that systems thinking can oer inno-
vative ways that are fine-tuned to the unique challenges of the 21st century.
1.3 Systems Thinking, Situational Crime Prevention, and
Risky Places
Systems thinking is a broad approach encompassing theoretical under-
standing and practical problem-solving, emphasizing a broad and inter-
connected view of systems (Acko, 1994; Meadows, 2008). It encourages
exploration beyond individual components to consider the dynamic inter-
actions and feedback loops of a system (Arnold & Wade, 2015). Related
concepts include general systems theory and systems analysis. The first of
these relates to theoretical frameworks and general principles that support
a wider understanding of systems (Von Bertalany, 2010). System analysis
can be considered the practical application of systems thinking and uses
tools such as data modeling, simulation, and optimization to analyze and
enhance the performance of a system (Bergen, 1986). In this book, we
6 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
consider systems thinking as an approach that explores systems, identifies
the interdependencies present, and recognizes interconnected parts.
Systems thinking has been applied across a range of disciplines, such
as organizational learning, engineering, biosciences, ecology, and pub-
lic health (Leveson, 2016). It has gained some traction in criminology,
including green criminology (Tourangeau, 2022), cybercrime (Shaked et
al., 2021), intimate partner violence (Carne et al., 2019), prisons (Gaskell,
1995), and police reform (Bagby, 2021). However, to date, it has received
little exposure in place-based responses to crime prevention. In Chapter 7,
we reflect on some broader explanations for this.
One of the challenges that can be identified at risky places for crime is
the complexity of problems evident. Problem-oriented and action-focused
interventions rely on a narrow, focused, reductionist understanding of a
problem and the identification of appropriate solutions to address this.
Whilst problem-oriented policing and situational approaches to crime pre-
vention have successfully reduced crime (Hinkle et al., 2020), we have lim-
ited evidence of their sustainability. Indeed, Ekblom (2024) poses a series
of challenges to what he calls an oversimplification of research and prac-
tice. Others have attempted to link situational perspectives of places to
tools in public health (Ceccato, 2020; Sidebottom & Tilley, 2023; Eck et
al., 2024). Ekblom (2024) has developed a series of frameworks, which
he describes as “precision tools for thinking, communication and action,”
which can support the complexity involved in preventing crime. Examples
of these include the conjunction of criminal opportunity (CCO) and the
5Is framework, which can be used to help practitioners and researchers
navigate some of the ‘messiness’ present when identifying and responding
to crime in risky places. These frameworks help guide thinking and the
complexities of the problems evident. However, as will be evident in this
book, we suggest that to achieve more sustainable approaches to crime
prevention, we need to extend these frameworks further and incorporate a
broader systems-thinking perspective.
In this book, we consider a system as “an interconnected set of elements
that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (Mead-
ows, 2008, p.18). Systems can be nested; for example, a risky place is a
system, but this is part of a neighborhood, which is a wider system. This
neighborhood can also be part of another broader system, such as the city
and so forth. A system consists of three components: elements, intercon-
nections, and functions. For example, a school can be considered a system.
The elements are the parts of the school that are most easily identified, for
example, pupils, teachers, the buildings, the resources, the organizational
structure of sta, and the school rules and policies that students should
follow. The interconnections include the flow of learning and knowledge,
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 7
communication between sta and pupils, the enforcement of policies, and
the movement of pupils between lessons. A primary function is education,
which may, for example, include elements of ‘character building.’ Other
functions of the school may be to connect socially with the local commu-
nity. At times, its functions, such as leisure or other activities, maybe more
diverse. During election times, schools can become polling stations where
people vote. System dynamics are also highly relevant, and it is necessary
to consider how a system or its components behave over time. Charac-
teristics that define a well-functioning and sustainable system include its
‘resilience,’ ‘self-organization,’ and ‘hierarchy.’ We return to these in detail
in Chapter 2.
In Chapters 4–6, we will explore how some places may be risky and
others may not. One approach that has been used to reduce crime at risky
places such as schools is to design and engineer specific situations or set-
tings that reduce the opportunities for oending. The purpose of this is to
make oending more complex, less attractive, or riskier. This is known as
situational crime prevention, which oers practical approaches to reduce
opportunities for oending. This might be by manipulating the immedi-
ate environment in which crime occurs, for example, altering the envi-
ronment’s physical, social, or managerial aspects (Clarke, 1995). This is
dierent from broader crime prevention strategies that seek to address
structural causes of crime by targeting an individual’s inherent ‘criminal-
ity.’ Examples of situational crime prevention measures include installing
surveillance cameras, improving lighting in public spaces, implementing
access controls, or changing the design of buildings to minimize potential
hiding spots for criminals. They also include initiatives engaging with ‘plu-
ral policing,’ recognizing that the police can’t solve issues independently
and must involve residents, businesses, the fire service, and other commu-
nity safety partners.
This book brings together well-established disciplines that have evolved
over the past 50 years. While we do not claim novelty in the foundational
principles, this robust body of knowledge informs and strengthens our
approach. When framing this through a systems approach, we start to
unravel the dierent elements, interconnections, and functions present and
identify the complexities evident. To better understand complex systems,
we also need to understand the local context. Applying systems thinking
to the study of risky places supports a better understanding of the rhythm
and dynamics of risky places, creating comprehensive models of the prob-
lem and supporting long-term sustainable solutions. We contend that situ-
ational approaches eectively reduce crime in risky places, but we need
to be more sustainable in how we do this. In other professions, systems
thinking has been demonstrated as an eective approach to sustainable
8 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
change. We propose integrating systems thinking with conventional situ-
ational crime prevention as a way forward. We believe it has the potential
to achieve sustained prevention of crime in risky places. We contend that
systems thinking should be considered a complementary approach to situ-
ational crime prevention and not something to replace or contradict it. We
suggest readers should consider how they might integrate this thinking into
their own crime prevention approaches for a more sustained impact.
Systems thinking is a complementary way of looking at situational con-
ditions of crime and crime prevention in at least three ways. First, sys-
tems thinking recognizes that situational approaches provide a practical
framework for understanding and addressing crimes by focusing on the
immediate situational factors that influence oending. Therefore, analyz-
ing crime patterns and concentrations aids in pinpointing the problem to
better target protective measures in risky places (see Chapter 8). These
approaches complement broader long-term eorts based on structural
causes of crime and can enhance the eectiveness of law enforcement
strategies by protecting targets (people, properties, and areas) and involv-
ing actors and communities. As Meadows (2008) makes clear, it is neces-
sary to take time to observe ‘the beat of the system,’ which is an essential
step embedded in many situational approaches to crime. For instance, the
SARA model (Chapter 3) grew from Problem Oriented Policing (POP;
Goldstein, 1979). Analysis is integral to both approaches, providing an
understanding of the events and conditions that precede and accompany
the problem.
Second, an intervention designed to achieve short-term success is
assumed in conventional situational crime prevention to incontestably
ensure long-term success. However, there are many examples where this is
not guaranteed. This demands long-term monitoring of such interventions,
which may not be eective in the long term or could even make matters
worse. There are several challenges for evaluation that will be explored
throughout this book, and they are not new. More than 30 years ago,
we were warned about the limitations of our Popperian claims of cause
and eect based on falsification principles. Ekblom (1990) states that it is
unreasonable to expect definitive proofs outside of a laboratory setting in
the practical realm of developing responses to crime, where numerous spe-
cific and complex evaluation challenges arise. Tilley (1993) rightly reminds
us that absolute proof is unattainable even in the most rigorous of sci-
ences. The best we can strive for is the development of improved theories
that result in improved knowledge and practice. This can only be achieved
through well-conducted evaluations, and even after well-conducted evalu-
ations that identify initial success, sustaining these eects over time is chal-
lenging without ongoing adjustments and broader community engagement.
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 9
Third, in conventional situational approaches, it becomes imperative to
narrow down the scope of the problem as specifically as possible. This
process allows the identification of the problem and the resources that can
assist in developing a deeper and more nuanced comprehension of the prob-
lem. Doing this creates a risk of hyper-segmentation of a problem, leading
to unsuccessful outcomes. This ‘hyper-segmentation’ of the problem has
created short-sighted organizational structures. The nature of funding is
problematic and generally short-term, which limits the length of time inter-
ventions can be delivered. This also results in short-term approaches to
training and education. As a result, everyday practices cannot be aligned to
long-term visions. In the next session, we will discuss these issues in more
detail.
1.4 Sustainability and Crime Prevention
In this book, we adopt the concepts of ‘security’ and ‘safety’ interchange-
ably whilst recognizing that security is more frequently associated with
the ‘absence of crime,’ and safety is more regularly linked to ‘lack of fear
or worry about crime.’ Addressing crime and fear in risky places requires
a comprehensive approach that goes beyond the planning of the physical
environment. Risky places are unique because they demand extra eorts
from residents, businesses, law enforcement, government ocials, and
community organizations to ensure that actions reflect the needs of those
who use them. More than in any other place in the city, in places that
attract lots of crime, the role of planning must “take into account a variety
of aspects of society with good touch” (Forsberg, 2019, p.12). The chal-
lenge is how to interpret democratically made decisions, dierent needs
and expectations of diverse groups, and combine them into long-term sus-
tainable solutions.
Integrating a sustainability agenda into this equation is essential, as this
encompasses the structures and processes of authority that govern social,
political, and economic relationships and includes both formal and infor-
mal institutions, as well as private forms of authority (UNODC, 2020).
The expectation is that planning aligns with community needs and broader
policy goals. This is particularly true for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development, which recognizes that reducing conflict,
crime, violence, and discrimination and ensuring the rule of law, inclusion,
and good governance are key elements of people’s well-being and essential
for securing sustainable development (UN, 2015).
Sustainability was first defined over 40 years ago and is now broadly
recognized as a guiding framework for shaping policy and develop-
ment (Scoones et al., 2020). In a globalized world, social, economic, and
10 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
environmental knowledge underpins the political processes that determine
the future shape and functioning of urban and rural areas. Such a pro-
cess focuses not only on the environmental and economic dimensions of
sustainability but also on the social dimension (De Fine Licht & Folland,
2019). These goals show the opportunities to accommodate complemen-
tary interests between sustainability’s social, environmental, and economic
dimensions and those that conflict with each other (Campbell, 1996; Val-
lance et al., 2011).
Sustainability has also become a key construct across many disciplines
(Williams et al., 2000). Crime and safety are not generally considered part
of the sustainability debate, but there is some evidence of a change here.
The clearest is found in green criminology, which focuses on environmen-
tal crimes, climate change, and ecological justice (White, 2007). A fur-
ther example is restorative justice, which focuses on repairing the harm
caused by criminal behavior (Van Ness et al., 2022). The more obvious
link between crime and sustainability is through social cohesion, which
can be considered a vital element of a community’s long-term stability and
growth (Jeannotte, 2003). Ensuring a sense of safety in a place is intimately
connected to various aspects of community sustainability, where residents
engage socially with others and participate in community activities.
There is an increasing recognition of the need to embrace interdiscipli-
nary approaches to address complex challenges, particularly those related
to sustainability. Laub (2006) questions why many criminologists do not
draw from other disciplines to aid their understanding of crime. He sug-
gests that conventional reliance on single disciplines limits a field’s abil-
ity to comprehensively understand and address sustainability problems.
To advance and contribute meaningfully to sustainability, we must adopt
interdisciplinary research methodologies, and we suggest systems thinking
and systems analysis emerge as crucial tools for this.
The historical reliance on single disciplinary perspectives to understand
crime has resulted in a narrow understanding of its complexities. However,
in a globalized and digitized connected world, sustainability challenges
demand a more integrated approach to understanding crime. Collabora-
tion with fields such as environmental science, urban planning, and public
health allows criminologists to consider the interconnectedness of social,
economic, and environmental factors that contribute to crime. The adop-
tion of systems thinking enhances our ability to understand the complexities
of criminal systems, facilitating innovative and sustainable interventions.
In practice, sustainability is also linked to the societal costs of crime,
both realized costs for ‘processing’ crime and the costs of preventing crime.
Paulsen (2013) divides the eects into three categories: economic, social,
and environmental costs. The economic costs of crime are related to direct
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 11
losses attributable to crime, including reductions in, for example, property
values or total government spending. Social and emotional costs are more
dicult to quantify but can, for example, be assessed by the impact the fear
of crime has on people’s mobility and behavioral choices. As victimization
is unequally distributed in society, the price of crime and fear is higher
among the most vulnerable. Finally, the environmental costs of crime pre-
vention include, for example, carbon dioxide emissions. Research shows
that crime prevention contributes 12.5 million tons of CO2 annually in
England, equivalent to the emissions of countries such as Lithuania as a
whole (Wordmeter, 2024). Other costs include the environmental costs of
construction and planning areas requiring renovation or demolition.
A potential way to address these costs and challenges is through systems
thinking. This requires a clear common vision that is plainly articulated
and socially shared, discussed and debated constructively, and formulated
and constantly reformulated (Meadows, 1994). Using the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) as a starting point, our shared goal is to align
with the goal of creating safer places and critically think about the ways
we develop sustainable crime prevention. This is the first step towards ‘sus-
tainability transitions,’ which involve long-term structural changes toward
more sustainable societal systems through profound shifts in practices,
thoughts, organization, institutions, and values (European Environment
Agency, 2024). Thus, our vision could be informed by knowledge imple-
mentation from the SDGs 1, 3, 5, 11, 13, and 16.
Addressing the safety of risky places through systems thinking aligns
with SDG 11, which aims to make cities and rural settlements inclusive,
safe, resilient, and sustainable. By adopting a systems thinking approach,
we can contribute to SDG 11 by understanding and addressing the inter-
connected challenges related to safety in urban and rural areas, promoting
sustainable solutions that enhance the overall well-being and resilience of
communities. Finding risky places in areas of the rural-urban continuum
involves a combination of research, data analysis, and on-the-ground
observations. In Chapters 4–6, we provide several examples of using con-
ventional methods to detect risky places and analyze likely key drivers. In
Chapter 8, we explore how more recent innovative methodologies could
support systems thinking approaches and be combined with traditional
approaches.
Safety directly impacts the health and well-being of individuals and com-
munities, which is linked with the aims of SDG 3, which is to promote good
health and well-being. A systems thinking approach to safety in risky places
contributes to achieving the goal of ensuring good health and well-being by
addressing the structural causes of safety challenges and promoting overall
community health. For example, in a Latin American city in the Global
12 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
South, local institutions collaborate to address safety challenges, address-
ing high crime rates, limited healthcare access, and inadequate infrastruc-
ture. A systems thinking approach integrates eorts for community safety,
healthcare access, and infrastructure, aligning with SDG 3 for overall com-
munity health. If applied to risky places in the Global North, the specific
strategies and institutions involved would vary based on the local con-
text and the unique challenges faced by each community. However, still,
the approach would be the same, recognizing the interconnected nature of
safety, well-being, and health.
SDG 13 focuses on climate action to combat climate change and its
impacts. The targets of SDG 13 include strengthening resilience and adap-
tive capacity to climate-related hazards, integrating climate change meas-
ures into national policies and strategies, and improving education and
awareness on climate change mitigation. In environmental criminology,
there have been recent calls for the need to identify synergies in the built
environment between climate change adaptation and crime prevention;
see Chamard (2024), who assessed specific risks associated with climate
change, such as heat, wildfires, and flooding. Yet, this is just the start; there
remains a significant breadth of issues to be explored and investigated in
this area, including the connections between environmental and organized
crime (Wyatt, 2021) that link various risky places worldwide.
Policies that acknowledge ‘inequalities and inequities’ in opportunities
have become central in Europe (EC, 2021); for example, the ‘Just Tran-
sition Mechanism’ emphasizes the importance of supporting those who
bear the heaviest burdens and recognizing that certain groups may be more
aected than others. Engagement of vulnerable groups in adaptation plan-
ning and implementation towards a sustainable future is a basic condition
for more ‘just policies.’ This acknowledges the inequalities and inequi-
ties that exist between groups and places. Inequities refer specifically to
unjust inequalities that could be remedied through changes in policy, soci-
etal structure, or practices. Systems thinking can support this by recogniz-
ing the need for customized tools to support eorts toward sustainability
transitions. An example of this in practice is that the intersectionality of
victimization is recognized. Coined by Kimberlé (Crenshaw, 1989), inter-
sectionality addresses how various aspects like gender, race, and economic
status intersect to shape discrimination. It is necessary to reflect these dif-
fering experiences and perceptions of gender in both the short and long
term. This nuanced understanding has the potential to oer more targeted
strategies to ensure safety measures address the specific needs of diverse
groups, including women and girls, LGBQTI+, older adults, people with
disabilities, and other vulnerable groups, as highlighted in SDG 5. Con-
sideration of intersectionality is crucial for addressing the exclusion of
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 13
particular groups in society. By addressing these complexities, eorts can
align with goals related to safety improvements and economic growth to
support the aspirations of SDG 1.
Analyzing safety in risky places through systems thinking promotes the
development of eective, just, and accountable institutions, as indicated
in SDG 16. For example, municipalities, city councils, judicial systems,
and local government bodies all play a role in shaping safety, justice, and
governance policies. It is important to note that the specific institutions
involved can vary depending on the region and local administrative struc-
ture and often work towards various goals. Collaboration and coordina-
tion between these institutions are essential to achieving the objectives
outlined in SDG 16.
This section has demonstrated that there is considerable overlap across
SDG goals, yet often, each is addressed individually. Given the argu-
ments presented in this book for a move towards interconnected and
multi-disciplinary eorts and the intersectionality we have identified across
SDGs, we contend that a systems thinking approach oers an integrated
framework to address multiple SDG goals concurrently. When considering
structural causes of crime, can we create peaceful, just, and strong insti-
tutions without addressing poverty, good health and well-being, quality
education, and reduced inequality? In Europe, despite the EU’s commit-
ment to just and equitable transitions, there are still many challenges in
understanding how to eectively deliver considerations alongside envi-
ronmental sustainability goals through policy interventions (European
Environment Agency, 2024). Situational approaches to crime prevention
may reduce crime, but achieving a more sustainable long-term approach
requires greater thought as to how to combine more integrated thinking.
1.5 Novelty and Scope
The book is perhaps the first publication devoted entirely to examining
risky places for crime from a systems thinking perspective, which by defini-
tion is interdisciplinary. Risky places demand multi-disciplinary perspec-
tives to answer relevant questions about management and governance and
to consider temporal factors and multi-scale contexts. The book seeks to
unpick the role of the physical, social, technological, and political envi-
ronments on the commission of crime in a diverse range of risky places.
It, therefore, contributed to a better understanding of the circumstances
associated with various crime types at dierent types of risky places. The
book can potentially advance our theoretical and practical understanding
of places that are risky or perceived as unsafe. It oers detailed insights
into the impact of the urban environment on safety perceptions from the
14 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
perspective of dierent users, with suggestions as to how best to address
this. Sustainability emerges when we discuss challenging questions about
place ownership, rights to public places, and safety as an individual right.
The topic is timely and appropriate. Firstly, despite our growing under-
standing of crime concentrations, these are rarely considered in the wider
context. This book will explore the connected nature of risk at individual
facilities and larger complexes, the influence of nearby environs, and the
interconnected nature of risky places to gain a deeper understanding of the
place of crime risk.
Secondly, the book responds to calls from previous research, highlighting
the need for a broader understanding of risky places by drawing together
state-of-the-art research. These include how risk is measured across space
and time, how the concept of risky places diers from pre-existing theoreti-
cal constructs such as ‘hot spots’ and ‘repeat victimization,’ how widespread
these risky places are, and how risk at these environments can vary across
diering settings. With digitalization, new forms of interaction between
physical and cyber environments are created where new crime opportu-
nities emerge. This necessitates crime prevention eorts that extend far
beyond risky places. Globalization has created new demands for products
and services, generating crime opportunities in environments not observed
before, linked to flows of movement of people, products, and information,
which impact the governance and sustainability of places.
Thirdly, the book of risky places for crime is warranted to support the
development of safety interventions consistent with the goal of planning,
designing, and creating places that are both safe and socially sustainable.
This aligns with the UN-Habitat Safer City program and the key aspi-
rations of SDG 11 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. We are particularly interested in city users, and in this book,
we adopt an intersectional viewpoint on safety and security, considering
individuals’ multiple identities and experiences as crime victims. This per-
spective recognizes that exposure to crime or fear of crime results from
the interaction of the environment and individual characteristics such as
gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and socio-economic conditions.
Taking distance from gender-neutral perspectives to safety, we highlight
the specific needs of the most vulnerable groups in an intersectional per-
spective in risky places.
In addition, we seek to draw from perspectives of risky places from the
Global South. We include this to demonstrate that context matters. Whilst
some of the problems mirror those experienced in more developed nations,
for example, crime concentrations, there are important local factors, such
as culture, poverty, socio-economics, and political structures, that reveal
important nuances in these risky places. Preventing crimes here requires
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 15
knowledge of the interconnected nature of these issues in a particular
context.
In a globalized world, it is important to consider that crime goes beyond
traditional boundaries, and we explore examples where crime and risky
places cross international boundaries, such as drug smuggling and human
tracking. Despite eorts to identify from research across the Global
South, we are restricted by those written mostly in English and our knowl-
edge of key countries where this has been applied (Brazil, South Africa,
Colombia, Mexico, Nigeria, Namibia, and Kenya). We recognize this is
only a partial representation of studies that have been conducted in the
Global South, but we use these studies as indicative examples.
1.6 Book Structure
In Chapter 2, we introduce some of the fundamental concepts of systems
thinking, how we define a system, what we mean by its elements, and cen-
tral ideas such as interconnectedness, beneficiaries, feedback loops, lever-
age points, and boundaries. Drawing from several systems thinkers, such
as Meadows (2008) and Stroh (2015), we discuss ‘the basics of systems
approach’ as a guide for the chapters to come. We compare systems think-
ing to more conventional approaches and explore the dierences between
conventional situational crime prevention and systems thinking for reduc-
ing crime at risky places. We consider the multi-scale processes at play to
investigate the nature of places that are risky for crimes, what makes them
risky, their temporal and spatial characteristics, and the influences of con-
text on risky places, from local to global and vice-versa.
In Chapter 3, we provide definitions of risk, safety, and security as used
in this text, and then we review the key theoretical concepts used to under-
stand risky places for crime. We also define and describe the three compo-
nents of risky places we use as key elements within our book, namely risky
facilities, risky nodes, and risky paths. We consider the fundamental theo-
ries that underpin our knowledge of risky places, linked to place and time,
the interaction between people and their environments, and why and how
a series of factors converge at places and times to develop concentrated
pockets or opportunities for crime. We then identify some of the key chal-
lenges that we are currently faced with when seeking to adopt a systems
thinking approach to reduce crime at risky places.
Chapters 4–6 of the book provide case studies of places that are risky,
reflecting a selection of international contexts. This includes a considera-
tion of crime risk at risky facilities, including bars, libraries, bus stops,
and shops. We also examine risky nodes such as complex transit stations,
parks, public housing complexes, and larger outlets such as shopping malls
16 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
and nighttime entertainment zones. We also investigate risky paths and
journeys to consider the movement between places and how paths and
journeys can be considered risky places.
In Chapters 4 to 6, we explore risky facilities from the perspective
of those who use these places or manage or work at them. We pro-
vide examples from across the globe, both the Global North and Global
South. Whilst the majority of findings are from urban areas, we also
consider the rural-urban continuum and rural locations themselves.
With digitalization and smart cities, people, products, and services have
become parts of an intertwined set of overlapping networks, redefining
the concept of risky places beyond the physical spheres. We show in this
book that environmental contexts beyond cities shape crime dynamics.
Concentrations of crime are also found between places, along paths and
journeys, while people are in transit. These issues are important because
they aect people’s safety and mobility and influence the sustainability
of areas.
We use the concepts of risky facilities, risky nodes, and risky pathways
because these are the geographical scales at which risky places have pre-
dominantly been researched and are the elements we know most about.
We also use nodes in relation to how Lynch (1960) identifies place nodes,
as detailed in Chapter 3. However, we do acknowledge that a key part of
systems thinking is that systems can be identified at dierent scales and
that boundaries are not necessarily rigid. Whilst risky facilities tend to rep-
resent a single land parcel with high crime concentrations, for example, a
bus stop or a bar, we acknowledge these are not isolated from the broader
urban system. Nodes can also be considered as places of exchange, where
dierent flows congregate together, intersect, and exchange, and then they
flow out again. This may be a flow of people, but it could be informa-
tion flow, for example, in the case of cybercrime. Therefore, bus stops or
micro public spaces can themselves be considered nodes. In Chapter 4,
we discuss rail stations as nodes. However, stations vary considerably in
size from rural settings, perhaps only serving a few trains per day, which
might be classed as a facility, to those in highly dense areas with multiple
lines and connections. A large bus intersection could also be considered as
a node. On a larger scale, a city itself could be classed as a node within a
wider region. Whilst some of the basic structures of facilities, nodes, and
pathways remain similar, their application in terms of both their function
and their form can vary at dierent scales. We will discuss these in depth in
Chapters 4–6 of this book.
Chapters 7–9 explore the opportunities and challenges of using systems
thinking to reduce risk across a range of risky places in dierent interna-
tional contexts. Thus, this book responds to the challenge of providing a
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 17
reference tool for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to create
safer and more socially sustainable cities (UN-Habitat, 2019). Chapter 7
addresses the hurdles in applying systems thinking to crime-ridden areas,
discussing potential implementation barriers. The dialogue continues in
Chapter 8, which looks at sustainable governance strategies for manag-
ing risky areas, focusing on policy roles and long-term solutions, while
Chapter 9 positions systems thinking as a governance tool, aiming to
develop long-term strategies for the management of crime problems in
risky places. This chapter explores the complex roles of practice in urban
development, examining how they interact with the urban planning pro-
cess and influence each other. This chapter contrasts traditional situational
crime prevention methods with the use of systems thinking in handling
risky places, enriched by examples that do not fully apply systems thinking
but have traces of systems thinking in their implementation. The chapter
concludes with a hypothetical case study applying systems thinking to dem-
onstrate eective strategies for urban governance and crime prevention.
The book concludes with Chapter 10, advocating for systems thinking in
devising crime prevention measures, urging a long-term, interconnected
approach towards safety.
1.7 Concluding Remarks
In this chapter, we introduced the theme of this book, ‘risky places,’ which
are characterized by significantly elevated crime levels. These serve several
key functions within a system, including hubs for diverse activities and
places of convergence visited by many. They provide a range of experi-
ences for residents, visitors, and others engaging in the activities on oer.
We highlight the current lack of knowledge to suciently address the com-
plexities of crime at risky places sustainably. We suggest that traditional
situational crime prevention methods have an overly localized focus and
limited long-term impact. By questioning the eectiveness of current inter-
ventions, the book advocates for a systems thinking approach, emphasiz-
ing the importance of understanding and addressing the interconnected
elements of urban and rural environments in a globalized world.
This perspective aims to propose a complementary, more sustainable
path forward for enhancing safety and crime prevention. In this book,
although risky places are described by tangible elements of the environ-
ment such as ‘facilities,’ ‘nodes,’ and ‘paths,’ they also represent intangible
aspects of human interactions and their meaning in public places for a
diverse population. Risky places are complex systems, not only because
of the activities they attract locally but also because they are embedded
in other systems, for example, the neighborhood and the city, which have
18 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
significant implications for their governance. By extending the focus to
risky places beyond settings, situational crime prevention strategies can
be tailored to safeguard the function they provide for residents and visi-
tors, contributing to safety in diverse environments. Finally, we have also
aimed to connect the specific challenges posed by risky places with broader
sustainability goals and transitions by emphasizing the need to address ine-
qualities in victimization and opportunities, as well as the vulnerabilities
of certain groups. By highlighting the insuciency of current knowledge
and questioning the current practices in crime prevention interventions, we
call for a more comprehensive understanding of risky places as complex
systems embedded within larger frameworks.
References
Acko, R. L. (1994) Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics
Review, 10, 175–188.
Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015) A definition of systems thinking: A systems
approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678.
Bagby, C. R. (2021) Beyond reform: Better policing through systems thinking
(Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School).
Bergen, A. R. (1986) Power systems analysis. Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Borrion, H., Ekblom, P., Alrajeh, D., Li Borrion, A., Keane, A., Koch, D.,
Mitchener-Nissen, T., & Toubaline, S. (2020) The problem with crime
problem-solving: Towards a second-generation pop? The British Journal of
Criminology, 60(1), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz029
Campbell, S. (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the
contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 62, 296–312.
Carne, S., Rees, D., Paton, N., & Fanslow, J. (2019) Using systems thinking to
address intimate partner violence and child abuse in New Zealand. Auckland,
New Zealand: New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, University of
Auckland. ISSN: 2253–3222
Ceccato, V. (2020) Safety in public spaces from a place-oriented public health per-
spective. Companion to Public Space, 94–105.
Ceccato, V., & Abraham, J. (2022) Crime and safety in the rural: Lessons from
research. Switzerland: Springer Cham.
Chamard, S. (2024) Finding synergies in the built environment between climate
change adaptation and crime prevention. Crime Prevention and Community
Safety. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-024-00206-7
Clarke, R. V. (1995) Situational crime prevention. Crime and Justice, 19, 91–150.
Clarke, R. V., & Weisburd, D. (1994) Diusion of crime control benefits: Obser-
vations on the reverse of displacement. Crime Prevention Studies, 2, 165–182.
Crenshaw, K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black
feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist
politics. Goldstein, 139–167.
De Fine Licht, K., & Folland, A. (2019) Defining ‘social sustainability’: Towards a
sustainable solution to the conceptual confusion. Etikk i Praksis-Nordic Journal
of Applied Ethics, 21–39.
Eck, J. E., Ceccato, V., & Guerette, R. (2024) A General Problem-Solving Matrix
(GPSM): Combining a crime prevention and public health tools. Security Jour-
nal. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-024-00438-0.
Introducing Risky Places for Crime 19
Ekblom, P. (1990) Evaluating crime prevention: The management of uncertainty. In
C. Kemp (Ed.), Current issues in criminological research, vol. 2. Bristol: Bristol
Centre for Criminological Research.
Ekblom, P. (2024) Frameworks for crime prevention, security and community
safety. https://crimeframeworks.com/
European Commission—EC (2021) The just transition mechanism: Making
sure no one is left behind. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/
priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/finance-and-green-deal/
just-transition-mechanism_en
European Environment Agency (2024) Delivering justice in sustainability transitions.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/delivering-justice-in-sustainability-
transitions#:~:text=Sustainability%20transitions%20are%20processes%20
of,et%20al.%2C%202017
Forsberg, G. (2019) Samhällsplaneringens teori och praktik. Liber. http://urn.
kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-177379
Gallent, N., & Gkartzios, M. (2019) Defining rurality and the scope of rural plan-
ning. In The Routledge companion to rural planning (pp.17–27). Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Gaskell, C. (1995) The management of change in prisons. In K. Ellis, A. Gregory,
B. R. Mears-Young, & G. Ragsdell (Eds.), Critical issues in systems theory and
practice. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9883-8_16
Gehl, J. (1987) Life between buildings. Using public space. Washington, Covelo,
London: Island Press.
Guerette, R. T., and Bowers, K. J. (2017) Assessing the extent of crime displace-
ment and diusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evalua-
tions. Crime Opportunity Theories, 529–566.
Goldstein, H. (1979) Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime and
Delinquency, 24, 236–258.
Hinkle, J. C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., & Petersen, K. (2020) Problem-oriented
policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and
meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(2), e1089.
Jeannotte, M. S. (2003) Singing alone? The contribution of cultural capital to social
cohesion and sustainable communities. The International Journal of Cultural
Policy, 9, 35–49.
Lamont, T. (2021) But does it work? Evidence, policy-making and systems think-
ing comment on ‘what can policy-makers get out of systems thinking? Policy
partners’ experiences of a systems-focused research collaboration in preventive
health. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 10(5), 287.
Laub, J. H. (2006) Edwin H. Sutherland and the Michael-Adler report: Searching
for the soul of criminology seventy years later. Criminology, 44, 235–258.
Leveson, N. G. (2016) Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety
(p. 560). The MIT Press. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/26043
Lynch, K. (1960) The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Meadows, D. H. (1994) Down to earth. Sustainability Conference in San Jose, Costa
Rica. https://donellameadows.org/archives/envisioning-a-sustainable-world-
video/
Meadows, D. H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. D. Wright (Ed.). White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Paulsen, D. J. (2013) Crime and planning. Planning sustainable communities. Lon-
don: CRC Press.
Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Abrol, D., Atela, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Eakin, H., Ely,
A., Olsson, P., Pereira, L., Priya, R., van Zwanenberg, P., & Yang, L. (2020)
Transformations to sustainability: Combining structural, systemic and enabling
approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 65–75.
20 Introducing Risky Places for Crime
Shaked, A., Tabansky, L., & Reich, Y. (2021) Incorporating systems thinking into a
cyber resilience maturity model. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 49(2),
110–115.
Sidebottom, A., & Tilley, N. (2023) Broadening the public health approach to
policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 17. https://doi.org/10.1093/
police/paad064
Stroh, D. P. (2015) Systems thinking for social change: A practical guide to solv-
ing complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting
results. Hartford: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Tilley, N. (1993) Understanding car parks, crime, and CCTV: Evaluation lessons
from safer cities (Vol. 42). London: Home Oce Police Department.
Tourangeau, W. (2022) A systems-based approach to green criminology. Critical
Criminology, 30, 983–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-022-09627-y
UN-Habitat (2019) Safer cities programme. New York: UN-Habitat.
UNODC, United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime (2020) Safety governance
approach for safe, inclusive, and resilient cities: A practical guide for conducting
safety governance assessments in urban environments. https://www.unodc.org/
documents/Urban-security/Safety_Governance_Assessment_Guidance_final.pdf
UN, United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustain-
able development. UN Doc. A/RES/70/1 (September 25, 2015).
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., & Dixon, J. E. (2011) What is social sustainability? A
clarification of concepts. Geoforum, 42, 342–348.
Van Ness, D. W., Strong, K. H., Derby, J., & Parker, L. L. (2022) Restoring justice:
An introduction to restorative justice. New York: Routledge.
Von Bertalany, L. (2010) General systems theory. In D. Hammond (Ed.), The
science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general systems theory
(pp. 103–142) . Boulder: The University Press of Colorado.
Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2009) Public area CCTV and crime preven-
tion: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 26(4),
716–745.
White, R. (2007) Green criminology and the pursuit of social and ecological justice.
In P. Beirne & N. South (Eds.), Issues in green criminology: Confronting harms
against environments, humanity and other animals (pp.32–54). Cullompton,
Portland: Willan Publishing.
Williams, K., Jenks, M., & Burton, E. (2000) Achieving sustainable urban form.
London, New York: Taylor and Francis.
Wyatt, T. (2021) Wildlife tracking: A deconstruction of the crime, victims and
oenders. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wordmeter (2024) CO2 emissions by country. https://www.worldometers.info/
co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/#google_vignette
Yarwood, R. (2023) Rural geographies: People, place and the countryside. Abing-
don, Oxon: Routledge.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003281030-2
This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY 4.0 license
2
THINKING IN RISKY PLACES
ASSYSTEMS
2.1 A System and Its Parts
Most experts are not confronted with problems that are independent of
each other. Take, for example, a place that concentrates high levels of
crime in a deprived ethnic heterogenous area. The crime concentrations are
unlikely to be caused by the criminogenic conditions of a single address or
process. If we want to address the problem, we need to understand it as part
of a complex system and consider the neighborhood, the city, and possibly,
outside connections. If the crime prevention response is to solely increase
police presence, this will likely overlook other systemic factors. Applying a
narrow action-orientated focus may lead to unintended consequences, such
as the over-policing of certain parts of the city, the perception of racial pro-
filing, and the criminalization of poverty. Systems thinking acknowledges
these limitations and emphasizes the need to consider the entire system,
recognizing that the performance of a system is dependent on how its parts
interconnect and function together.
Donella Meadows was a leading voice in systems thinking, and much of
the inspiration for this book stemmed from her ideas. She suggested that
because we live in an increasingly changing world and problems become
increasingly complex, systems thinking can support our search for the
structural causes of these complex interconnected problems. Only when
we see the relationship between the structure of the system and its ‘behav-
ior’ can we begin to understand how a system works and then respond
to the problems more appropriately. According to Meadows (1994),
there are several fundamental prerequisites for successfully implementing
22 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
systems thinking. These include having the necessary resources and putting
together frameworks to support this. Additionally, it is essential to have
a thorough understanding of the issues at hand. This involves developing
models and gathering detailed information about the challenges we wish
to address, as well as how previous ‘missteps’ may have made the prob-
lems evident. Beyond these technical requirements, it is crucial to develop
well-defined goals and a shared vision. This vision must be collaboratively
discussed and widely embraced across the community to ensure a cohesive
and practical approach.
We consider a system as “an interconnected set of elements that is
coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (Meadows, 2008,
p.18). A system consists of three types of things: ‘elements,’ ‘interconnec-
tions,’ and a ‘function’ or ‘purpose.’
‘Elements’ are the individual parts of a system and are usually the easiest
to identify, such as the houses in a street or neighborhoods in a city. Intan-
gible elements include trust, social cohesion, or fear of crime. Elements may
include law enforcement agencies, planners, community organizations, and
residents. The elements work together and are linked by interconnections.
‘Interconnections’ involve communication channels, collaboration
eorts, and information sharing among these elements, and sometimes
they are not easy to detect, such as information flow. The interconnec-
tions are “the relationships that hold the elements together” (Meadows,
2008, p.13).
The ‘function’ or ‘purpose’ of a system, for example, can be to achieve
a safer community by reducing crime. The function or purpose of a sys-
tem is multi-faceted, exemplified by its role in fostering a safer community
through the strategic reduction of crime. In this context, the system oper-
ates as a complex mechanism, employing various interconnected elements
and strategies to enhance community safety. A system’s purpose is not nec-
essarily spoken, written, or expressed explicitly except through the opera-
tion of the system itself (Meadows, 2008). To identify a system’s purpose,
we need to observe how it behaves. For instance, if the local government
publicly expresses a commitment to addressing street violence but allo-
cates insucient funds or eort toward that objective, it becomes clear that
the actual purpose of the local government may not align with the stated
goal of violence reduction. There is a mismatch between the government’s
stated goals and its policies, and the system will, therefore, fail to achieve
the goal of violence reduction. As suggested by Rutherford (2018), the
system’s real purpose may end up being something that was not wanted by
any of the elements, as their elements within the system work toward dif-
ferent purposes. This is an example of a system trap, which we return to in
more detail in the final parts of this book.
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 23
Another fundamental concept in systems thinking is ‘feedback loops’
(Meadows, 2008). These are considered recurring interactions where the
output influences the input. For instance, increased police presence may
reduce crime, create a reinforcing positive feedback loop, and improve
safety conditions. Crime can be considered an ‘event,’ something that hap-
pens and is often a symptom of underlying systemic factors rather than
isolated incidents. An increase in crime in a facility can also be considered
an event. A system’s structure is the source of its behavior, and “systems
behavior reveals itself as a series of events over time” (Meadows, 2008,
p.18).
In the context of systems thinking, ‘beneficiaries’ refers to those who
gain or benefit from the structure and operation of a system (Meadows,
2008). However, there may also be detrimental experiences, such as being
the victim of a crime. In a city, beneficiaries might include commuters who
have access to ecient travel by public transportation or kids who enjoy
good-quality schools. Beneficiaries can be the users of a place, for example,
spectators at a stadium, patrons in a restaurant, or school pupils. However,
there are other beneficiaries at places, including managers, police ocers,
and other practitioners who provide services or may profit from the sys-
tem. Definitions of beneficiaries depend on the system’s scale and how it is
contextualized.
‘Leverage points’ are strategic points of influence in a system. A minor
modification at a leverage point can significantly change the system’s
behavior (Meadows, 2008). Leverage points can be elements of the system
itself, such as rules, norms, parameters, or structures, whose adjustment
or transformation can lead to impactful changes in the system’s overall
functioning.
It is important to highlight that when using this approach, a system can-
not be divided into independent parts (Acko, 1994). None of the parts
has an independent eect overall. We propose that a critical challenge
we currently face in crime prevention that restricts long-term thinking is
that we only focus on a single part of the system, neglecting the intercon-
nections between parts, which gives rise to unintended consequences. To
detect a system, Meadows (2008) suggests we should consider the follow-
ing questions:
a) Are there identifiable parts?
b) Do these parts influence one another?
c) Do the collective actions of the parts yield outcomes beyond their
contributions?
d) Does the impact of behavior persist over time and across dierent
situations?
24 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
Therefore, whilst we cannot break down a system into its parts, we
cannot aggregate the parts back, as the parts alone do not make it a
system. Indeed, a system is more than the sum of its parts. Meadows
(2008) provides an interesting example. She compares an old residen-
tial area to a newer one. An old city neighborhood is a social system
because people who know each other may communicate regularly. A
new residential area full of strangers who have just moved in is not yet a
system, as it requires time for relationships between people to develop.
Similarly, a high crime segregated neighborhood where people distrust
the police and are fearful of each other should perhaps not be character-
ized as a social system. On a sub-scale, such as the street or individual
household level, people may interact with each other, and the system
concept applies, but this does not apply at a neighborhood level. This
raises an important question about how to set and define the boundary
of a system.
Boundaries
System boundaries are crucial for determining what is considered part of
a system and what is external to it. As Meadows (2008, p.97) reminds
us, we cannot attain knowledge of a whole system. However, understand-
ing key components allows for eective intervention and system improve-
ment. To do this requires a focus on understanding the critical elements
of a system and gaining knowledge of how it works rather than trying
to comprehend the entire system. Meadows acknowledges the dicul-
ties and challenges of defining boundaries in systems thinking: “There
are no separate systems. The world is a continuum. Where to draw a
boundary around a system depends on the purpose of the discussion.”
Meadows highlights that there is often no single ‘correct’ way to define
system boundaries because they depend on the specific purpose of the
analysis or inquiry.
The diculty arises from the systems’ interconnected and dynamic
nature, where components and influences can extend beyond traditional
or anticipated boundaries. Therefore, the choice of system boundaries is
subjective and influenced by the goals and perspectives of the user(s), for
instance. In complex systems, interactions and feedback loops can create
ripple eects across boundaries, making it challenging to isolate compo-
nents from their broader context. Meadows encourages thoughtful consid-
eration of what to include within the system and what to treat as external
factors, recognizing that dierent boundary choices can lead to dierent
insights and interpretations. Meadows underscores the need for a nuanced,
context-specific approach to defining system boundaries.
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 25
Equilibrium
The behavior of a system over time, or that of its component parts, can
be considered as the ‘dynamics’ of a system. Some systems are in equi-
librium. We talk about dynamic equilibrium when the condition of a
system’s ‘stock’ is steady, in which case the ‘inflows’ and ‘outflows’ are
equal (Meadows, 2008). In the context of crime in a city, dynamic equi-
librium can be illustrated by considering the number of criminal oenses.
Imagine a city where the rate of reported crimes remains relatively sta-
ble over an extended period despite fluctuations in individual incidents.
In this scenario, the stock represents the total amount of oending in
the city at any given time. Inflows refer to new crime incidents, such as
thefts, assaults, or burglaries. Outflows are the resolved cases, arrests, or
other factors leading to decreased oending. In a state of dynamic equi-
librium of crime, the overall level of oending remains steady despite the
constant inflow of new incidents and the outflow of resolved cases. This
implies that the city maintains a balance where the rate of new crimes
is oset by the rate of resolution or deterrence, resulting in a relatively
stable crime rate over time.
Interdependencies
Interdependencies refer to the relationships and connections between dif-
ferent parts of a system, where the elements within the system aect and
are aected by each other (Meadows, 2008). Place owners, intricately con-
nected to larger political and economic systems, operate within networks
that include other proprietors, financial institutions, and government regu-
lations show how place owners establish a series of networks of control
over the whole city. The systems are composed of elements and extend
to the operation of streets, neighborhoods, and cities, where ownership
equates with control. This is one of the explanations for why some proper-
ties have crime, and others do not (Eck & Madensen, 2018). Consequently,
an influential group that owns a large proportion of a neighborhood wields
the greatest wealth and influence and, therefore, has a major influence on
opportunities for crime (Linning & Eck, 2021). These connections are
shown in Figure 2.1.
Self-Organization
A ‘self-organizing system’ is a complex entity where decentralized interac-
tions among its components result in the spontaneous emergence of pat-
terns, structures, or behaviors without external control. Self-organization
is “the ability of a system to structure itself, to create a new structure, to
26 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
learn, or diversify” (Meadows, 2008, p.18). An example is a neighbor-
hood coming together to address an emergency or a crisis. The need for
action creates interactions between parts of a system, working towards
a unified goal. Lacking centralized control, individual components inter-
act locally, allowing the system to organize itself based on these interac-
tions autonomously. These systems exhibit adaptability to environmental
changes by reorganizing themselves, and they are often robust, maintain-
ing functionality despite disturbances or alterations.
Hierarchy
A ‘hierarchy’ is a structure in which elements are ranked or organized in
levels or layers based on their status, authority, importance, or other cri-
teria. Hierarchies serve to provide order, structure, and a clear chain of
command or classification within a system. Hierarchy is a fundamental
feature of the system, not only because it gives the system stability and
resilience but also because it reduces the amount of information the sys-
tem needs to track. In hierarchical systems, the ‘within’ relationships are
dense. For example, people that live close together in a neighborhood are
more likely to know each other than those that live far apart. Hierarchi-
cal systems are organized from lower to higher levels, progressing from
individual components to the whole. The primary objective of hierarchical
systems is to enhance the performance of their constituent parts, ensuring
optimal functionality. However, Meadows (2008) highlights that a highly
FIGURE 2.1 Networks of place control that extend to larger areas of cities.
Source: Adapted from Linning and Eck (2021, p.45).
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 27
functional system requires a good balance between central coordination
towards a system goal and providing enough autonomy to the subsystems
to allow the parts to evolve and flourish. In Chapter 3, we show how the
urban hierarchy reflects the structure of central places in a region.
Adaptation/Evolution and Tipping Points
Adaptation refers to how (urban) systems modify their structures, opera-
tions, and policies in response to internal and external pressures and chal-
lenges (Masson et al., 2014). A key component of this is resilience building
against various stresses, for example, economic downturns, crime, cli-
mate change, and social unrest; innovative solutions for managing daily
problems; feedback mechanisms facilitating real-time adjustments; and
collaboration and long-term planning. Adaptations in urban systems can
sometimes have adverse eects, such as unintended consequences of poli-
cies, displacement eects, or dependence on resources that are not equally
distributed across the system.
In the context of systems thinking applied to risky places for crime, evo-
lution refers to how places adapt over time through a series of feedback
loops. As crime patterns emerge, cities adjust policies, resource allocation,
and community interventions, fostering an evolving urban system better
equipped to address and mitigate crime dynamically and eectively. In
cities, there are critical thresholds that, once crossed, cause a significant
change in the system’s state, called ‘tipping points’ (Stroh, 2015). In urban
development, reaching a tipping point can rapidly transform an area, either
improving it drastically or leading to decline. Implementing small interven-
tions can positively shift local perceptions and behaviors. These ‘nudges’
help rebuild community engagement. Therefore, cities must engage in com-
prehensive planning and continuous monitoring of adaptations to become
resilient systems.
The ideas of evolution and adaptation from a Darwinist perspective have
been applied to individuals who may oend (Roach & Pease, 2013) or to
crime prevention strategies (Ekblom, 1999). Examples include ‘evolutionary
struggles’ such as ‘biological coevolution’ between predator and prey or mili-
tary arms races. In the Global South, Nel et al. (2018) and Kgotse and Land-
man (2022) apply the concepts of change and evolution to cities in South
Africa, suggesting the need to adopt a complex adaptive systems approach.
Resilience
‘Resilience’ refers to the ability of a system to recover quickly from diculties,
challenges, or setbacks. Are systems able to adapt or recover in the face of
28 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or significant sources of stress (Desouza &
Flanery, 2013)? Cumming (2011) defines spatial resilience as an interplay, at
dierent scales, between the spatial attributes of a system and dierent system
constituents, for example, elements, interactions, adaptive capacity, memory,
and history. Meadows (2008) states that the opposite of resilience is rigidity.
Resilient systems have several feedback loops that work dierently to
restore a system even after a major disturbance or ‘shock.’ They can work
at dierent timescales; if one fails, another loop may ‘kick in.’ This is more
observable in times of crisis, for example, when a natural disaster or war
destroys a city and recovers over time. For more chronic day-to-day prob-
lems such as crime, one suggestion is for crime prevention to focus on build-
ing community resilience. This involves fostering strong community ties,
enhancing social cohesion, and implementing programs that empower resi-
dents to respond eectively to crime, reducing its impact and promoting
recovery. However, Meadows suggests that there are limits to resilience.
Many organizations may lose their resilience because the feedback mecha-
nisms are delayed or distorted by procedures such as legal approvals. Resil-
ience in terms of cities generally refers to the ability to absorb, adapt, and
respond to changes in an urban system. See, for instance, the case of boom-
towns (Fernando & Cooley, 2016). However, Desouza and Flanery (2013)
suggest that resilience shares much with other key contemporary urban goals
such as sustainability and governance which we below discuss more in detail.
Governance
Governance refers to the processes, structures, and mechanisms through
which individuals and institutions exercise authority, make decisions, imple-
ment policies, and manage resources within a given organization, commu-
nity, or society. International literature identifies some key principles for
eective governance, including promoting transparency, accountability, and
responsiveness to the needs and interests of the constituents (Kjaer, 2023).
The quality of the information and/or knowledge is also important in
the system. Scientific knowledge is indispensable in addressing crime and
safety issues, as it equips professionals and all actors involved in the plan-
ning process to understand the factors influencing the problems. Informed
decision-making leads to more long-term eective interventions. As sug-
gested by Rutherford (2018) good knowledge of the phenomenon in focus
provides a robust foundation for addressing current challenges:
A government can’t make good policy changes without information and
research on the problematic subject. Just because they know there is a
problem doesn’t mean they can take productive action without having
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 29
the necessary data, research, and listening to the voices of the relevant
constituents. Without enough information, making a decision is just as
safe as relying on blindfolded, dart-throwing monkeys to hit the center
of the dartboard.
(Rutherford, 2018, p.23)
Many of the interconnections in systems operate through the flow of
information, which means that changes in information flow can impact
outcomes. Systems are typically not dependent only on one component or
subcomponent but rather on interconnections. As previously suggested,
Meadows (2008) states that its function or purpose is the least obvious part
of the system and perhaps the most dicult to influence. The purpose of a
system might be straightforward: to enhance public safety with a sustainable
perspective. In this example, the system’s function might not be solely about
reducing crime numbers. However, it could be more subtly tied to how infor-
mation flows within the planning system work in the long run in a munici-
pality and across a constellation of actors involved in each safety program.
If a highly engaged planner/safety expert were to leave the system for any
reason, such as retirement or a career change, and this impacts the flow of
information to coordinate crime prevention eorts, this could potentially
aect the program and, in practice, negatively impact the crime levels. In
this way, the least obvious aspect of the system’s purpose is reducing crime
and maintaining a robust and sustainable flow of information. Recognizing
and understanding these subtleties in the system’s purpose becomes crucial
for ensuring its resilience and eectiveness of the system over the long term.
We will return to this topic in the last chapters of this book.
2.2 Cities As Systems
Cities were conceptualized as ‘systems’ more than half a century ago (e.g.
Williams, 1970), and this approach remains integral to how we think about
cities. Table 2.1 illustrates the characterization of cities as systems, com-
paring classic and more contemporary approaches. A system here is gener-
ally defined “as organized entities that are composed of elements and their
interactions” (Batty, 2013, p. 22). Elements are interrelated to each other
in such a way that changes in one element can aect others or all (Gustafs-
son et al., 1982). The organization of a system is composed of aggregated
elements at dierent scales that form distinct structures and subsystems
that can be arranged in a hierarchy to hold these parts together (Batty,
2013). A traditional example of cities as systems is given by the notion that
they are composed of locations such as places of work and residence inter-
connected by trac flows of all sorts, maintaining the system’s structure.
30 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
Cities are about connecting people (Jacobs, 1961). Cities are more than
just a well-structured hierarchy of ‘sets of spaces, places, and locations’
maintained by structures in some temporary equilibrium. Contemporary
systemic conceptions of cities recognize them as organic systems instead
of machine-like, better represented by ‘sets of actions, interactions, and
transactions,’ in which locations still play a central role in their function-
ality: the street corner, the square, the buildings, the streets, the stores,
and shopping malls, the tangible flows of people and intangible flows of
information.
In the classical system approach to understanding cities, the emphasis is
on fixed attributes of specific locations and tangible physical morphologies
that constitute urban landscapes. This method perceives cities as collections
of distinct spaces, places, and locations analyzed through a mechanistic lin-
ear process. Employing a Cartesian structure, the classical approach tends
to be top-down and centralized in decision-making and control, treating
the city as a closed system with defined boundaries. The assumption of
equilibrium guides this approach, anticipating a stable state within the
city’s structures. Furthermore, the analysis is often conducted within the
confines of one or two specific disciplines.
Contrastingly, the complex systems approach envisions cities as dynamic
and interconnected entities, emphasizing the importance of networks,
flows, and the organic, stochastic processes that underlie urban phenom-
ena. A city is a complex system, which means it has a dynamic behavior
that is dicult to understand. It is composed of many unforeseen parts and
processes of interactions, and as such, are always far from equilibrium,
“for they are forever changing” (Batty, 2013, p.14). Complex systems like
TABLE 2.1 Cities as complex systems: key features.
Classical system approach Complex systems approach
• Location, places
• Physical morphologies
• Sets of spaces, places, and locations
• Mechanic, linear processes
• Cartesian structure
• Top-down, centralized.
• Defined as if they were closed o.
• Tendency to equilibrium
• Uni/bi-disciplinary
• Networks, flows
• Communications and exchange
• Sets of actions, interactions, and
transactions
• Organic, stochastic processes
• Fractal structure
• Bottom-up, hierarchical organizations.
• Defined as if they were open, ‘Glocal’
links.
• ‘Far from equilibrium’-status, in
constant change
• Inter/multi-disciplinary
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 31
cities tend to be large and show many interlinkages and external intercon-
nections that follow non-linear (stochastic) processes, dicult to predict,
and can rarely be understood by single disciplines (Gustafsson et al., 1982).
In this perspective, the city is not merely a sum of fixed physical elements
but a complex web of actions, interactions, and transactions. The structure
is perceived as fractal, exhibiting self-similar patterns at dierent scales.
Decision-making and control are distributed in a bottom-up fashion,
acknowledging the emergent properties that arise from the interactions
within the city. Open to global and local influences, the complex systems
approach recognizes cities as far from equilibrium, in a perpetual state of
change. Moreover, the analysis encourages an interdisciplinary lens, foster-
ing a broader understanding of the challenge across various disciplines.
The idea that cities could be defined as if they were closed-o systems
in time and from the wider world has been widely discredited as exter-
nal interactions are part of current decentralization and globalization pro-
cesses (Batty, 2013). In a world dominated by global interconnections,
cities are no longer idealized physical morphologies, but instead, they are
better represented as patterns of communications, interactions, change,
and exchange. Locations represent “a synthesis of what happens through
networks and of how activities interact with one another” (Batty, 2013,
p.15); it is “where processes begin and end” (Batty, 2013, p.9). Moreo-
ver, web and wireless infrastructure and overall technological development
have shifted from physical interactions to digital ones, redefining the city
as a system.
Another essential aspect of cities as complex systems is their organiza-
tion. Most cities are built in modular form from the bottom up, in a hier-
archical fashion, in which their components determine the networks on
which individuals and groups engage with each other through social and
economic exchange. However, there are exceptions, such as Hausmann’s
reconstruction of Paris.
In the previous chapter, we introduced the notion of systems hierarchy
and how systems are embedded in wider systems. Cities are no excep-
tion. Using principles of fractal theory, we argue that cities can be better
understood through the topological relationship of the underlying streets
(Ma et al., 2018), which supports the association of systems with human
activities, including crime. The evolution of cities built from the bottom up
and organized by hierarchical structures is a strength because parts can be
damaged, but not the whole system (Simon, 1991). In the past, Cartesian
ideas of interconnections provided the basis for thinking about cities as
being organized from the top down. However, according to Batty (2009),
this is a mistake because cities are better defined as distinct collections of
interacting parts from the bottom-up, fractal-like structures with explicit
32 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
functions, often in analogy to processes of planning and management, bet-
ter adapted to current needs of inclusion and urban diversity.
Places that concentrate crime are part of urban systems’ interconnected
tangible and intangible parts. The view of the future city as a ‘holistic’ sys-
tem demands a vision that includes both physical and cyber components.
Sustainable urban design must consider integrating digital infrastructure,
ensuring the built environment and cyber infrastructure work seamlessly
together. This means it is necessary to identify potential cyber threats
and vulnerabilities in the design phase and implement measures to miti-
gate against them. This includes securing digital infrastructure, prevent-
ing unauthorized access, and ensuring data privacy (Johnson, 2024). An
important principle for future cities is leveraging smart city technologies
for sustainability and security.
This requires integrated resilience planning to ensure cities can deal with
day-to-day problems such as crime and safety and, at the same time, recover
quickly from crisis situations, including cyber incidents. Smart technolo-
gies can enhance eciency, reduce resource consumption, and improve
safety. Establishing guidelines and standards for the secure design and
implementation of digital infrastructure within the city could be considered
a technical problem. However, this demands important shifts in policy and
access to resources, alleviating existent inequities dictated by gender, age,
ethical background, and socio-economic standards, as well as the legacy of
persistent patterns of environmental injustices. Environmental justice is a
concept and a movement that addresses the unfair distribution of environ-
mental benefits and burdens among dierent groups (UNDP, 2024) and, in
this context, would involve addressing the causes of crime, such as poverty
and inequality, but also investing in situational crime prevention to create
a safer and more just urban environment for all residents. By combining
these principles, cities have a better chance to work to develop sustainable
and resilient environments that minimize the creation of risky places, not
least in connection with cybercrime.
2.3 Conventional and Systems Thinking
Building on the definition of systems from Meadows, Stroh (2015, p.16)
defines systems thinking as “the ability to understand [the interconnec-
tions between elements] in such a way as to achieve a desired purpose.”
Systems thinking examines the entire system and all its pieces and con-
nects to the desire to achieve a shared goal. This process is not as simple
as it sounds. Meadows (2008) reminds us that most big societal problems,
such as crime, unemployment, or climate change, persist regardless of our
knowledge and good intentions to solve them. Why do good-intentioned
policies end up achieving the opposite of their intended goals?
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 33
One of the more salient explanations for this is that we often resort
to conventional reductionist thinking to address complex problems. Stroh
(2015) provides several examples from the United States of ‘failed policies’
which, despite good intentions at the outset, resulted in outcomes that were
not intended. Examples include ‘drug busts’ that increase drug-related
crime and ‘tough on crime’ policies that increase fear of violent crime.
These often translate into media headlines, which are found across the
globe. Therefore, we are well-informed daily about ‘events’ within systems.
However, we have often limited information on how to solve them and
a lack of understanding about the nature of these problems. Traditional
thinking is not appropriate for addressing complex chronic social prob-
lems; these require an in-depth, long-term knowledge of these systems. In
Meadows’s words, we need time to observe the system, gathering facts and
observing a system’s patterns. We return to these ideas in Chapter 8.
Table 2.2 illustrates the basic premises of conventional reductionist
approaches and systems thinking and how the two dier. Applying systems
thinking principles to crime and safety means recognizing the interconnect-
edness of various systems elements, such as transportation, energy, com-
munication, and information systems, and understanding how changes in
one aspect may impact the entire system.
Conventionally, we deal with each part of the system by itself instead of
seeing the interconnectedness of the parts (Meadows, 2008). According to
TABLE 2.2 Conventional versus systems thinking.
Conventional thinking Systems thinking
The connection between problems
and their causes is obvious and
easy to trace
The relationship between problems
and their causes is indirect and not
obvious
Others, either within or outside the
organization, are to blame for our
problems and must be the ones to
change
We unwittingly create our problems
and have significant control or
influence in solving them by changing
our behavior
A policy designed to achieve short-
term success will also assure long-
term success
Most quick fixes have unintended
consequences: they make no
dierence or make matters worse in
the long run
To optimize the whole, we must
optimize the parts
To optimize the whole, we must
improve the relationships among the
parts
Aggressively address independent
initiatives simultaneously
A few key coordinated changes
sustained over time will produce large
systems change
Source: Stroh (2015), p.15.
34 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
Stroh (2015), we often address the manifestations of problems instead of
their structural causes, partially because most of the solutions seem obvi-
ous, which he terms ‘the quick fixes.’ Therefore, we may realize immediate
short-term benefits, but these may be compromised through sustained reduc-
tions or oender adaptation and crime increases in the long term. An impor-
tant principle of systems thinking, as outlined in Table 2.2, is that the most
eective approach to optimizing a system involves enhancing the relation-
ships among its components rather than individually optimizing each part.
This encompasses knowing what part of the system should be addressed and
how. Meadows (2008) suggests as a reference the use of ‘leverage points,’
which we discussed previously and will return to in Chapter 8.
We now consider how systems thinking concepts apply to the governance
of place and the implication of this for crime prevention in risky places. We
build on these ideas further in Chapters 7–9 of the book.
2.4 Safety Governance and Elements of the System
In this section, we consider those who can support the development of
long-term crime prevention strategies, including, for example, architects,
planners, security experts, law enforcement, emergency services, and
schools. We introduce some ideas linked to identifying ‘opportunities for
action,’ which we return to in more detail in Chapters 7 and 9. We split
these opportunities into two possibilities: those ‘prior to the construction
of an area’ and ‘the post-construction phase of an area.’
When planning a new residential area, architects and planners have an
optimal opportunity to design the layout of buildings and spaces between
them to reduce crime. Law enforcement may contribute with pre-assessments
of locations of potential crime risks. There should be steps in place to ensure
the community becomes an integral part of the planning process. Given our
knowledge about the potential successes of CPTED (Chapter 3), these steps
should be introduced during the proactive building phase.
Interactive planning (Acko, 1999) can support this by encouraging
active participation from relevant practitioners to create a shared vision
that fosters a sense of ownership. This requires a divergence from more
typical reactive planning approaches. However, events that do happen
cause significant issues, and problems may require a hybrid solution. This
should include combined strategies based on feedback and changing cir-
cumstances, such as implementing feedback loops to assess the eective-
ness of interventions and adjust them accordingly.
The development of crime and risky strategies typically occurs in the
‘post-construction phase.’ This requires devising solutions to fit the existing
system. Cities are pre-existing entities with a legacy of established urban fab-
ric, structures, and complexity. To successfully implement interventions, we
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 35
must adhere to the frameworks provided by tangible systems, such as hous-
ing and transportation networks, and intangible systems, including organi-
zational structures and local, regional, and national policy guidelines that
aect the system’s functioning. Using Table 2.3 as a reference, we illustrate
TABLE 2.3 Elements, interconnections, and function/purpose of a system and its
subsystems.
Urban planning
and community
safety system
Law
enforcement
system
Judicial
subsystem
Social
services and
rehabilitation
subsystem
Elements Community
organizations,
residents,
neighborhood
watch groups,
CCTV,
and other
technology
infrastructure
Police
departments,
ocers, patrol
units, and
investigation
units
Courts,
judges, legal
professionals
Social workers,
rehabilitation
programs,
and support
services
Inter-
connections
Regular
meetings and
community
engagement
programs.
Data-sharing
protocols and
integration
with law
enforcement
databases
Communication
systems,
data-sharing
platforms,
collaborative
task forces
Legal
procedures,
case
management
systems,
coordination
with law
enforcement
Collaboration
with law
enforcement,
the judicial
system, and
referral
systems
Function/
purpose
Monitor crime
patterns,
prevent crime,
and promote
collaboration
between law
enforcement
and the
community.
Planning safe
new housing.
Dealing with
conflicting
SDG goals
Enforce laws,
investigate
crimes, and
ensure public
safety
Adjudicate
cases, ensure
justice, and
impose
consequences
for oending
Address
underlying
social issues
contributing
to crime
and prevent
recidivism
36 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
how elements, interconnection, and purpose of the systems work together to
achieve a specific desired goal, in this case, for example, of reducing crime
and maintaining public safety. The eectiveness of the entire system relies on
the coordination and functionality of these embedded subsystems.
Each subsystem (top row) in the table encompasses specific elements
such as community organizations, police departments, courts, and social
workers. We seek them all to work towards the common goal of main-
taining safety and addressing the structural causes of oending. In a func-
tioning system, these subsystems are interconnected through data-sharing
platforms and collaboration, ensuring a cohesive approach to crime pre-
vention. The purpose of these interconnected subsystems is multi-faceted:
monitoring and preventing crime, enforcing laws, adjudicating criminal
cases, and addressing social issues that contribute to crime, such as by
oering rehabilitation programs. This system focuses on the immediate
response to crime and long-term strategies to support communities, thus
dealing with the complex task of balancing dierent social goals, such as
those outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The systems in the table are embedded in regional and national systems,
which adopt their own specific programs and policies. At the international
level, these subsystems may or may not follow similar policies and guide-
lines, as we will discuss in Chapter 9. In a city, the criminal justice system can
be considered a complex adaptive system, as described earlier in this chap-
ter. Meadows (2008) suggests that these systems exhibit emergent behavior,
where the interactions of individual components lead to collective patterns
and behaviors. It involves a network of interconnected components, includ-
ing law enforcement, legal institutions, communities, and oenders.
The purpose (or function) of subcomponents of a system may not be the
primary purpose of a system. In fact, Meadows (2008) explicitly indicates
that one of the main challenges of systems is that the purposes of their sub-
units may add a behavior to the system that is not desirable. She reminds
us that keeping the purpose of each actor in line and in harmony with the
overall purpose of the system is an essential function of successful systems.
An example would be an expectation that removing buskers and home-
less people who clean cars in the parking lots of train stations would reduce
fear of crime and encourage those fearful back onto public transport. The
hypothesis was that by removing buskers and homeless people, passen-
gers would return to trains and buses. The purpose of planners was to
decrease the number of fearful residents complaining about homeless peo-
ple and buskers, even if the ‘problem’ is moved elsewhere. In the begin-
ning, nobody understood that by removing buskers and homeless people
from the parking lots, they were creating other problems. They eliminated
the only source of money for this group. They removed ‘the eyes on the
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 37
parking lot.’ Theft from cars increased in the area, and homeless shelters
elsewhere became overloaded.
Too often, when identifying opportunities for action, we focus on a sys-
tem’s events rather than its structure. According to Stroh (2015, p.45),
events are problematic because they are just the tip of the iceberg of prob-
lems we want to solve. This approach may “lead people to do exactly the
wrong thing for all the right reasons.” The causes of chronic, complex
problems can be found in underlying system structures.
Assessing a system’s performance over time requires knowledge about
the balancing process of growth, decay stability, and equilibrium (Mead-
ows, 2008). Balancing feedback is crucial for understanding why certain
systems do not change despite our eorts. Stroh (2015) highlights three
recurrent challenges. The first one is when we stop investing in the solution
once the problem appears to be solved. The author mentioned a case of an
initiative in Boston, USA, to curb youth crime. When the problem declined
after the interventions, community leaders felt the pressure to move funds
to other areas in need, and as a result, the problem returned. In this case, it
is necessary to learn from this experience by ensuring that solutions can be
sustained over time to have a chance to show impact.
Another common problem is failing to identify the time required for
a program to realize impact. Changes to the structure of social systems
require long-term eorts, and infrequently, there are insucient resources
for extended programs. Stroh demonstrates this through a program to
reduce teenage drinking in Massachusetts, which took 11 years to establish
a positive impact.
A further obstacle to identifying opportunities for action is a lack of
agreement on the goals of the system, which we discuss further in Chapters
7 and 9. The disagreement means that sometimes it is impossible to assess
the system when the goals that they were supposed to achieve were not the
same from the beginning. This experience demands that it is necessary to
establish a clear shared vision of the goals and a common understanding
of the reality before developing strategies to change the system’s structure.
In summary, systems thinking oers a complementary approach to con-
ventional situational crime prevention applied to risky places. However, there
are significant obstacles to recognizing the interconnectedness and interde-
pendencies of urban elements. One important challenge lies in the complex-
ity of urban systems themselves. Moreover, the change from conventional
to systems thinking in governance and planning of the safety of risky places
for crime necessitates substantial changes. This includes how planners and
other safety experts view the problem, the methodologies we use, and insti-
tutional structures. The focus on interconnectedness, while a strength, also
raises concerns about oversimplification of solutions or the risk of unintended
38 Thinking in Risky Places as Systems
consequences when interventions in one part of the system inadvertently
impact other seemingly unrelated areas. We return to these issues in more
depth in Chapters 7 and 9.
2.5 Concluding Remarks
In this chapter, we approach risky places as systems, applying systems
thinking to understand and address the complexities inherent in urban
safety and crime prevention. Risky places are areas with significantly high
crime characterized by fluid dynamics, making intervention challenging.
Some are good, others not. Consequently, comprehensively understanding
these places is important for long-term planning.
The chapter lays out an essential foundation in systems thinking, posi-
tioning it as the central analytical framework of the book. It begins by
introducing cities as complex systems, setting the stage to explore critical
theoretical principles vital for comprehending high-risk environments and
formulating crime prevention strategies. The chapter also acknowledges
the potential challenges of applying systems thinking to urban safety. The
vast array of variables and the dynamic nature of cities make it hard to
predict outcomes accurately.
Despite such challenges, the solution is to step back and recognize ongo-
ing trends or patterns of the system(s) and not react upon the most obvious
cause-and-eect relationships that are observable to the eye. This process
demands dierent types of resources and a better understanding of the
long-term mechanisms by trying to anticipate the future or, alternatively, to
work backward to identify desirable outcomes. Systems thinking requires a
comprehensive understanding of these complexities by a group of experts,
which we acknowledge may be daunting and resource-intensive. How-
ever, current approaches are too localized and do not support sustained
prevention.
References
Acko, R. L. (1994) Systems thinking and thinking systems. System Dynamics
Review, 10, 175–188.
Acko, R. L. (1999) Acko’s best: His classic writings on management. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Batty, M. (2009) Cities as Complex Systems: Scaling, Interaction, Networks,
Dynamics and Urban Morphologies.
Batty, M. (2013) The new science of cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cumming, G. S. (2011) Spatial resilience: Integrating landscape ecology, resilience,
and sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 26, 899–909.
Desouza, K. C., & Flanery, T. H. (2013) Designing, planning, and managing resil-
ient cities: A conceptual framework. Cities, 35, 89–99.
Thinking in Risky Places as Systems 39
Eck, J. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2018) Place management. In G. J. N. B. S. D.
J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of environmental criminology (pp.629–663).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ekblom, P. (1999) Can we make crime prevention adaptive by learning from other
evolutionary struggles?. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 27–51.
Fernando, F. N., & Cooley, D. R. (2016) Socioeconomic system of the oil boom
and rural community development in western North Dakota. Rural Sociology,
81(3), 407–444.
Gustafsson, L., Lanshammar, H., & Sandblad, B. (1982) System och modell: en
introduktion till systemanalysen. Studentlitteratur.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.
Johnson, S. D. (2024) Identifying and preventing future forms of crimes using situ-
ational crime prevention. Security Journal (in press).
Kgotse, K., & Landman, K. (2022) The transformation and adaptive capacity of
Tsweu Street in Mamelodi, City of Tshwane. International Planning Studies,
27(4), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2022.2125862
Kjaer, A. M. (2023) Governance. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Linning, S. J., & Eck, J. E. (2021) Whose eyes on the street control crime?: Expand-
ing place management into neighborhoods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Ma, D., Omer, I., Osaragi, T., Sandberg, M., & Jiang, B. (2018) Why topology
matters in predicting human activities. Environment and Planning B: Urban
Analytics and City Science, 2399808318792268.
Masson, V., Marchadier, C., Adolphe, L., Aguejdad, R., Avner, P., Bonhomme,
M., ... & Zibouche, K. (2014) Adapting cities to climate change: A systemic
modelling approach. Urban Climate, 10, 407–429.
Meadows, D. H. (1994) Down to earth. Sustainability Conference in San Jose, Costa
Rica. https://donellameadows.org/archives/envisioning-a-sustainable-world-video/
Meadows, D. H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT:
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Nel, D., du Plessis, C., & Landman, K. (2018) Planning for dynamic cities: Intro-
ducing a framework to understand urban change from a complex adaptive sys-
tems approach. International Planning Studies, 23(3), 250–263. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13563475.2018.1439370
Roach, J., & Pease, K. (2013) Evolutionary perspectives on crime prevention. In
Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1447–1454). London,
UK: Springer-Verlag.
Rutherford, A. (2018) The systems thinker: Essential thinking skills for solving
problems, managing chaos, and creating lasting solutions in a complex world.
(No Title).
Simon, H. A. (1991) The architecture of complexity. In Facets of systems science
(pp.457–476). New York: Springer.
Stroh, D. P. (2015) Systems thinking for social change: A practical guide to solv-
ing complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting
results. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
UNDP-United Nations Development Programme (2024) Environmental justice.
https://www.undp.org/rolhr/justice/environmental-justice
Williams, H. E. (1970) General systems theory, systems analysis, and regional plan-
ning: An introductory bibliography. Exchange Bibliography No. 164.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003281030-3
This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY 4.0 license.
3
REVISITING THE THEORETICAL
FOUNDATIONS OF RISKY PLACES
3.1 Introduction to Crime and Risky Places
Why is crime high in some places and not in others? No matter the scale
or context, whether rural or urban, or which part of the globe we refer to,
a clear pattern emerges. Crimes often concentrate disproportionately in
small geographical places. Indeed, this led Weisburd (2015) to declare the
‘law of crime concentration,’ which he links to the criminology of place.
The author suggests that within a city, 50% of crime is concentrated
within approximately 2–6% of a micro-unit of geography, for example,
a street segment. As we demonstrate in Chapters 4 to 6, these risky places
with high disproportionate levels of crime are not limited to specific
regions but are found in urban and rural areas across the Global North
and the Global South, including Africa and Latin and South America.
This distribution is referred to as the Pareto distribution or the 80/20
rule. This states approximately 20% of ‘something’ is responsible for
80% of the results and has been observed in wealth distribution, trac
accidents, book sales, and internet trac (Koch, 2011).
This chapter explores the salient theories that underpin our knowl-
edge of places that concentrate crime. We propose that this understand-
ing can be enriched by incorporating systems thinking approaches
(Chapter 2), which consider the complex interplay of various factors
aecting risky places. At the end of this chapter, we consider the appli-
cability of systems thinking for crime prevention in risky places. How-
ever, before exploring this further, we consider what we mean by risk
in more detail.
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 41
3.2 From Risky Societies to Risky Places
Some origins of the term ‘risky’ are associated with sailing, for exam-
ple, ‘dangerous’ uncharted waters or activity near ‘hazardous’ clis.
More recently, this has been linked with ‘threat,’ ‘harm,’ and ‘immedi-
acy’ (Mythen, 2017). Introducing the concept of the ‘risk society,’ Gid-
dens (1999) suggests that in modern societies, risks are socially produced,
including those associated with technology, environmental degradation,
and complex social systems. Indeed, Giddens (p3) states, “The idea of risk
is bound up with the aspiration to control and particularly with the idea of
controlling the future.”
The notion of uncertainty here is fundamental as without it, we do not
have ‘danger.’ Modern societies are characterized by high levels of complex-
ity, and technological advancements and globalization have contributed to
intricate systems with intertwined risks. Giddens introduces the concept of
‘reflexivity,’ highlighting the continuous feedback loop between knowledge
and action. In a risky society, individuals and institutions are compelled
to reassess and adapt their behavior in the face of uncertain and evolving
risks. Giddens does not confine risk to local or national boundaries. Beck
(1992) expands this to include the global perspective, emphasizing the need
for a ‘cosmopolitan vision’ to address challenges collaboratively.
The Oxford English Dictionary (2023) defines ‘risky’ as “involving the
possibility of injury, loss, or other adverse or unwelcome circumstance;
dangerous; hazardous; fraught with risk.” It defines ‘risk’ more specifically
as a situation involving exposure to danger, the possibility that something
unpleasant will happen, or a threat or likely source of danger. However, risk
can also include situations where the probabilities of various outcomes are
known in advance, for example, when considering potential losses or threats.
Risk and uncertainty are fundamental concepts in decision-making.
‘Risk’ is quantifiable and allows for calculated approaches. ‘Uncertainty’
embodies known and unknown variables, encompassing ‘risks’ and ‘oppor-
tunities.’ Understanding this distinction is crucial, as it influences how indi-
viduals and systems create strategies to prepare for future conditions. “The
first requirement for uncertainty resolution is that the uncertainty be rec-
ognized by the planner” (Strangert, 1977, p.32). We return to this topic
in Chapter 9.
Risky Places
In this book, we associate ‘risky places’ with locations that have dispro-
portionately high levels of crime, relative or absolute. Risky places can be
found both in large urban centers and on the rural-urban continuum. We
42 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
adopt other tangible aspects related to the context of the urban space, such
as the concepts of Lynch (1960), who oers a series of tools to understand
nodes and paths. From environmental criminology, we strongly draw on
the seminal work by Brantingham and Brantingham (1993). Kennedy and
Caplan (2012) identify three propositions for risky places: that all places
are risky, but due to spatial factors, some are riskier than others; crime
occurs at places with high vulnerabilities based on the combinations of dif-
ferent criminogenic features present; and the overall impact of risky places
on crime is due to dierential vulnerability present and exposure to these.
We consider a place to be an environment of varying size and format and
use the place as a general concept, often as a synonym for the environment
or area where one or more facilities, nodes, or paths may be located. For
pedagogical reasons, risky places are split into three elements: risky facili-
ties, risky nodes, and risky paths. We do not strictly follow the same defini-
tions as Lynch, who identifies five elements of urban place: paths, edges,
districts, nodes, and landmarks, nor Brantingham and Brantingham, who
include nodes, paths, and edges in their Crime Pattern Theory. Instead, we
use both as a reference to make associations between dierent elements of
the urban environment, their morphology, and crime. We link these ele-
ments or facilities, nodes, and paths as a method of ‘wayfinding’ between
dierent elements of the built environment and consider these across mul-
tiple geographies and scales. We consider these elements crucial parts of a
system that controls and facilitates urban movement. For example, paths
can be represented as street segments, which may be part of a public trans-
port route. Nodes can be a shopping center or part of a neighborhood.
Facilities tend to represent smaller geographical features, such as libraries
or bars. They are interlinked with each other in complex systems such as
cities. We represent these ideas in Figure 3.1.
Increasingly, the impacts of globalization and the digital age introduce
new challenges and pressures to systems, manifesting through risky places.
They can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities in people and places, but they
also create new situations that increase opportunities for crime. In today’s
interconnected world, crime stems from a complex mix of socio-economic
inequalities, cultural influences, and social and environmental conditions.
It is the convergence of these factors at risky places that influence the mani-
festation of crime. Even rural areas are not immune to crimes like cyber
fraud, identity theft, and online scams.
Individuals or groups may exploit the digital divide and lack of cyberse-
curity awareness by taking advantage of global connectivity. This allows
them to operate internationally at a fast pace and to increase the scale of
their operations. In areas with significant disparities in wealth, drug traf-
ficking can become a lucrative way to earn a living, sometimes connecting
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 43
activities across regional and international borders. ‘County lines’ are an
example of an oense that involves drug tracking, where oender net-
works from larger cities expand their operations to smaller towns and rural
areas. The name ‘county lines’ is derived from the use of dedicated mobile
phone lines by these networks to facilitate drug orders and distribution
across county boundaries. Individuals often exploit the lack of opportuni-
ties, promising jobs, and better lives elsewhere, leading to smuggling and
human tracking (Harding, 2020). This includes not only the selling of
drugs but also the cultivation or production in some areas of the urban
fringe or rural areas.
This highlights the need for a nuanced approach to crime prevention that
considers the multifaceted dynamics of globalization, socio-economic dis-
parities, cultural nuances, and environmental factors. The rapid evolution
of technology and its influence on emerging and evolving types of crime
FIGURE 3.1 Facilities, nodes, paths, and nodes that are risky in an intercon-
nected urban system.
Source: Authors.
44 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
demand that crime prevention adapt and evolve accordingly (Ekblom,
2017). Systems thinking is an approach that supports actors in continu-
ously learning, adapting, and iteratively developing strategies that address
these challenges.
Studies of risky places have tended to focus on urban cities and large
towns. However, there is growing evidence that risky places also appear in
areas of the rural-urban continuum (Ceccato & Abraham, 2022). A recent
study by Wagner (2020) found that half of crimes occurred in less than
10% of locations across seven areas, with five areas showing crime con-
centrated in less than 4% of street segments. Areas of this type are contin-
uously evolving as commuting habits and broader access to information
and communication technology reshape people’s lifestyles. These transfor-
mations can introduce new risks, fostering fresh dynamics of crime and
fear of crime (Ceccato & Abraham, 2022). This calls for analytical frame-
works that capture information about the nature of risky places in the
context of the ‘space of flows’ (Castells, 1989). This perspective is crucial
to understanding how spatial and digital connectivity influences patterns
of risk and behavior in various settings and informs policing strategies
(Yarwood, 2022).
We now return to discuss the key elements of risky places, facilities,
nodes, and pathways identified earlier. Each is discussed in more detail in
Chapters 4–6 of the book, and we use this opportunity to provide a brief
overview of each.
a) Risky Facilities
We use risky facilities to refer to single land parcels, such as a bar, library,
bus stop, or restaurant. However, as discussed earlier, it is important
that our definitions are not rigid and that they enable flexibility of scale.
The concept of ‘risky facilities’ was developed by Clarke and refined
by Clarke and Eck (2007). It describes a small group of facilities that
attract the majority of all crime for that facility type and follows the
Pareto principle or 80/20 rule. For example, research in a US city found
that 1.6% of stores accounted for 70% of all shoplifting, and 18% of
schools in an English city reported 50% of all burglaries and vandalism
at schools. Several further examples of this are detailed in Chapter 4. In
practice, the 80/20 should be treated as a rule of thumb rather than an
exact science.
Concentrations of crime at places may not necessarily occur within a
risky facility and may manifest near them. By focusing on risky facili-
ties, law enforcement and planners can enhance safety at and in their sur-
rounding environments. For example, ‘place managers’ (Linning & Eck,
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 45
2021) can play a crucial role in preventing crime in risky facilities. We will
return to discuss place managers in risky facilities more detail in Chapters
8 and 9.
b) Risky Nodes
Nodes are the second type of environments that concentrate crime, and in
this book, we consider nodes as larger than single land parcels. Nodes tend
to be areas of convergence, of people, activities or information. They may
represent a grouping of facilities such as bars and restaurants in a night-
time entertainment zone. We have classed large train stations as nodes due
to their high level of connectivity and scale, but we agree they could be
considered as large facilities. Lynch (1960, p.47) states that nodes are “the
focus and epitome of a district, over which their influence radiates and of
which they stand as a symbol.” For example, shops and other services are
available at a shopping center or a stadium and its immediate surround-
ing area. These settings often belong to a larger area, which also attracts a
disproportionate amount of crime. In Stockholm, 16% of dierent types of
establishments (bars, clothing stores) in one shopping center experienced
66% of crimes and problems with public order (Ceccato et al., 2018).
Risky nodes are found in rural contexts and across the rural-urban con-
tinuum. An example could be a gas station located at a key intersection
between a rural area and a nearby urban center or a central square in
a village. These intersections can serve as a reference for various flows,
including people, goods, and services. They serve as a place of convergence,
which can increase opportunities for oending due to strategic importance
and the diversity of its users. Interventions in risky nodes demand strate-
gies that alter these interactions and reduce criminal opportunities. We also
observe risky nodes in the Global South, such as the case of cargo theft at
nodes. ‘Resting places’ linked to gas stations and warehouses along high-
ways have been identified as key places for cargo theft in Brazil and Mexico
(Justus et al., 2018; Hernandez Ramírez, 2024). We will return to explore
crime at risky nodes in more detail in Chapter 5.
c) Risky Paths and Journeys
Lynch (1960, p. 47) describes paths as the “channels along which the
observer customarily, occasionally, or potentially moves.” In this book,
paths are loosely defined to incorporate streets, boulevards, and avenues, as
well as waterways, railroads, or other means to move across rural and urban
places. A dark street between the parking lot and a station can be a risky
path, or a bus line itself can be risky or perceived as such. Street segments
46 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
form the building blocks of this movement, and international studies have
identified crime concentrations at the street segment level. Examples of this
are provided in Chapter 6.
Pathways have important temporal dimensions linked to time geography
(Hägerstrand, 1970) and Hawley’s concepts of rhythm, tempo, and timing
(Cohen & Felson, 1979). There are a series of temporal constraints on
where, when, and how far individuals and groups of people travel, and we
contend these are underexplored when considering risky pathways.
In rural areas, a risky path could be a long, secluded stretch of road con-
necting small villages or farms. These paths are essential for agricultural
transport, making them a potential target for oenders. Risky routes may
also occur at borders between countries where tracking and smuggling
are common and ‘generate job opportunities’ (Ceccato, 2007). In Aus-
tralia, Barclay et al. (2001) provide examples of tracks that service the
mining and pastoral industries that are targeted for vehicle theft and bur-
glary. Addressing the risks associated with these paths involves planning,
community involvement, and possibly technological integration to ensure
security locally and across these paths.
Risky Places Across the Rural-Urban Continuum and Beyond
The notion of risky places from a regional perspective links to ways local
decisions in land use or service provision can have broader implications for
regional development, economic structures, and environmental impacts.
For example, cities can be considered nodes in a hierarchical network,
where major metropolitan areas serve as higher-order central places pro-
viding specialized services and goods not available in lower-order towns
and villages. Von Thünen’s early 19th-century models depict the central
city surrounded by concentric rings of agricultural activity. Christaller’s
1933 framework placed urban centers as central places that function as
nodes in a larger system, including their hinterlands. This structure results
in a hierarchy, from the ‘more important’ central nodes to ‘less important’
peripheral places (Figure 3.2), and could be applied to risky places.
Nodes are linked by flows of goods, services, information, and people
(Getis & Getis, 1966). Smaller nodes, for example, in rural areas, may
have an important role in the landscape of organized crime, as discussed
earlier in the context of county lines. They are also important in the case
of cross-border crime (Shelley & Metz, 2017; Ceccato, 2007). Many types
of illicit activities find an ideal base in rural areas due to the lower popula-
tion density and reduced law enforcement presence. Examples include drug
cultivation and synthetic drug production, the production of counterfeit
goods, and corridors for smuggling goods and people.
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 47
Changes in one part of the system, such as the construction of a com-
mercial area, can impact other parts of the system. The eect of a bridge
constructed between Sweden and Denmark in 2000 (Ceccato & Haining,
2004) demonstrates interlinkages between nodes at dierent system hier-
archies, from local to regional to international. A physical change in the
connectedness of nodes resulted in a shift in the geography of crime and an
increase in selected crime types. Thus, viewing border regions as systems
that are influenced by multiple factors, such as economic disparities, cul-
tural dierences, and varying enforcement capabilities, can help in design-
ing more comprehensive crime prevention strategies that are adaptive and
responsive to local conditions.
Central Place Theory may also support our understanding of where
public services, such as police services, are located and their role within a
system (Figure 3.3). This shows a hierarchical structure of police stations
when examining services available in regional centers compared to smaller
towns. Not only do regional centers oer a larger variety of police services,
but they also oer more types than elsewhere. As the number of police sta-
tions declines, it is important that remaining service points are strategically
placed to support police work and adapt to how digitalization changes
public interactions with the police.
Systems thinking helps bring together the concepts of risky facilities,
risky nodes, and risky pathways as part of a broader system. They oer a
framework to consider how decisions made impact aect facilities, nodes,
FIGURE 3.2 Central Places Theory market principle.
Source: Rodrigue (2024), adapted from Christaller (1933).
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 49
and pathways at multiple scales. This is especially relevant in the context
of globalization, where they have broader implications for regional devel-
opment, and environmental impacts, not least for crime, police work, and
criminal justice.
3.3 Risky Places: Theoretical Underpinnings
Risky places of crime are multifaceted and complex, and we argue that
they cannot be explained through a single discipline or theoretical perspec-
tive. In this section, we explore this through a reflection on key theoretical
principles pertinent to our understanding of risky places for crime across a
range of dierent contexts.
Human Daily Activities and Crime
People’s activities and routines tend to follow a regular rhythm, consisting
of patterns that are constantly repeated. This is relevant to understand-
ing where and when activities occur, including crime. Swedish geographer
Torsten Hägerstrand (1970) coined the term time-geography to explain
that people’s decisions are space and time-dependent. Time is a necessary
condition for human activity, but it also limits movement. Crime commis-
sioning can be considered an activity like any other, with the same enablers
and limitations of time and space. Therefore, crime risks are dependent on
people’s movement patterns. We observe this when we consider peak and
o-peak hours, dierences between weekdays and weekends, and winter
and summer, especially when there is a large variation in daylight hours.
These place constraints on an individual’s movements dictate convergence
and dispersion in cities. Typical areas of convergence of human activities
are, for example, transport nodes, such as bus and train stations. We return
to convergence later in this section.
The City Image and Its Elements: Kevin Lynch and Beyond
Crime opportunities are influenced by the design and arrangement of urban
spaces and environments. Crimes do not occur randomly, and explana-
tions for this, in part, are found in individual movement and convergence,
particularly around work, education, leisure, and retail activities. Lynch
(1960) identifies ‘anchor points’ as key elements of a place that control and
facilitate all movement of individuals throughout the city, including paths,
edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks (Figure 3.4).
Landmarks are simple, recognizable physical features that stand out in an
environment and are often used for navigation. Nodes oer strategic foci and
50 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
represent the convergence of people and other flows of strategic importance,
such as a train station. Edges represent boundaries that delineate two places
and form linear breaks in their continuity. For example, they can be railroading
cuttings, the edges of a development, or walls. Paths can be streets, walkways,
transit lines, canals, and railroads, representing movement across a place.
The Convergence of People and Targets
Routine activities theory states that for a crime to occur requires the con-
vergence of three elements in time and space: a motivated oender, a suit-
able target or victim, and the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). A capable guardian is someone or something whose pres-
ence prevents crime. Figure 3.5 illustrates these three necessary conditions
of crime linked to routine activities, rational choice, and crime pattern
theory as the inner part of the ‘crime triangle.’
The outer side of the crime triangle relates to situational prevention
methods to reduce crime in risky places. A handler supervises the poten-
tial oender, a guardian protects the potential target or victim, and the
place manager controls the site or location (Clarke & Eck, 2003). Handlers
include formal supervisors, such as police ocers, security guards, and
inspectors, and informal supervisors, including employees, family mem-
bers, and friends. Place managers can be sta, guards or parking attendants
who regulate behavior in the places they control. We discuss their role in
more detail in Chapters 7–9 of the book.
Crimes do not occur uniformly in all types of places. A further explana-
tion of this is Crime Pattern Theory, which states that “motivated criminals
do not search through a whole city for targets; they look for targets within
their more restricted awareness space” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984,
p.365). They have also proposed that oenders’ daily patterns might influence
the location of oending behavior even when the oender is engaging, to some
degree, in a search pattern for a suitable target, having already decided in prin-
ciple to commit an oense (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984).
FIGURE 3.4 The city image and its elements.
Source: Artistic illustration adapted from Lynch (1960) by Author.
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 51
FIGURE 3.5 The crime triangle by Clarke and Eck (2003).
Source: Based on Cohen and Felson (1979) and adapted by Clarke and Eck (2003).
An individual’s awareness of space stems from their ‘anchor points’ in
urban landscapes, such as places of residence, schools, places of work, and
frequently used subway stations (Figure 3.6). These are also referred to as
nodes. As people travel between nodes, they develop their knowledge of
places or awareness spaces, identifying places that are most suitable for
crime. Our awareness spaces can be considered our cognitive maps; the
more we visit places, the better our awareness becomes. In crime pattern
theory, crimes are most likely to occur where criminal opportunities and
oender awareness space intersect. The connectedness of roads and paths
can also influence the extent to which people converge and, therefore,
crime opportunities. We explore this further in Chapter 6.
These ideas have been extended into the concepts of crime attractors and
crime generators (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1995), as well as radiators
and absorbers (Bowers, 2014). Crime attractors are areas with a reputa-
tion for crime and are known to oenders who plan visits to these sites.
They tend to have relatively few targets, and thus, the crime rate is higher.
Crime generators are places where lots of people converge, which creates
unplanned opportunities for crime. They have a higher number of possible
targets, and thus, the crime rate is lower. A crime radiator is a risky place that
causes crime in its immediate environment, which radiates outwards from it.
An absorber is a place that ‘sucks in’ or absorbs crime from its nearby locale.
We identify research that tests both in Chapters 4–6. This also has implica-
tions for how we define the boundary of a risky place (Chapter 8).
52 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
Two final important concepts here are Repeat Victimization and Near
Repeat Victimization (Townsley et al., 2003). The first is defined as a per-
son being a victim of a crime more than once over a defined time, often 12
months. The second concept suggests that if a crime occurs in one location,
the chances of a future crime occurring nearby in a short space of time
also increase. Both are essential components of risky places, which tie in
with theories of routine activities, crime pattern theory, and convergence
of opportunities.
Types of Environments and Neighborhood Contexts
Several studies explore the influence of neighborhood characteristics on
crime. For example, poor social control in an area can be a contextual
factor contributing to crime. Research into juvenile delinquency identified
that socially disorganized neighborhoods have higher levels of crime linked
to people’s inability to exercise social control in their neighborhoods and
FIGURE 3.6 Brantingham’s hypothetical model of the intersection of criminal
opportunities with oenders’ cognitive awareness space.
Source: Brantingham and Brantingham (1984, p.362).
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 53
to solve problems together. Social disorganization theory (Shaw & McKay,
1942) and its modern developments, such as social cohesion and collec-
tive ecacy (Sampson et al., 1997), oer more structural explanations of
crime. More recently, studies have begun to employ multi-level modeling
to examine the interaction between individuals and environments since nei-
ther on their own fully explains the presence or absence of risky places for
crime (Adeniyi et al., 2023).
There is a range of ‘natural’ and ‘designed in’ features in places that
might deter oenders. Jacobs (1961) introduced the concept of the ‘eyes on
the street,’ emphasizing the influence of neighborhood design on surveil-
lance opportunities. Similarly, Newman (1972) argued that building types
aect street activities, specifically through the “capacity of physical design
to provide surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents” (New-
man, 1972, p.78). Areas and neighborhoods with adequate surveillance,
clear separation of public and private space, and territorial control over
personal spaces lead to less delinquency, fear, and victimization (Taylor &
Harrell, 1996).
The physical environment can influence levels of surveillance and oppor-
tunities for crime, including types of facades, the height and density of
buildings, the connectedness and types of streets, whether windows are
facing the streets, how connected backyards and gardens are with streets,
alleyways and parking spaces, for example, may all create opportunities
for surveillance (Ceccato, 2020). The physical environment can also influ-
ence what are termed prosocial behaviors. For instance, territoriality can
create a sense of ownership by demarcating activity spaces. Target harden-
ing makes it more dicult to steal or damage property, such as padlocks.
Connecting the ‘Types of Environments’ and ‘the Types of People’
Situational action theory (SAT) suggests that individual morality and the
ability to exercise self-control explain people’s propensity to crime. However,
it also recognizes that people are not immune from the influence of their envi-
ronment. SAT accounts for the mechanisms through which the intersection
of individuals and settings may result in a crime. SAT suggests crimes occur
when, and only when, certain specific personal traits find themselves in an
environment that is conducive to crime. Wikström and Treiber (2017) state
that “environments don’t commit crimes; only people do. Therefore, crime
prevention policies and interventions targeting environmental characteristics
are only eective if they promote changes in how people perceive crime as an
alternative course of action” (p.82). The theory suggests that concentrations
of crime events in an area are essentially the convergence in both the time
and place of crime-prone individuals and criminogenic settings.
54 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
The previous section has explored what we consider salient conven-
tional explanations for risky places of crime. However, we acknowledge
the need to consider the user perspective and explore the fear of crime in
risky places. Indeed, whilst a risky place may not actually have a high level
of crime risk, it may have been perceived to be high risk by those who use
that place, or vice versa.
3.4 Fear in Risky Places: Why Do They Matter,
When, and for Whom?
Not all places that attract disproportionately high crime levels are perceived
as unsafe by all users and visitors. In some places, very few crimes occur,
yet people avoid them or only use them at certain times of the day because
they are perceived as unsafe. Fear of crime may be influenced by an indi-
vidual’s attributes and experiences, cultural factors, media coverage, and
other factors. Eorts to address the ‘fear’ of crime should incorporate both
subjective and objective dimensions of safety to develop strategies that
promote both physical and psychological well-being. In this section, we
discuss what makes people think places are risky and unsafe. We start by
defining ‘fear’ before examining the most salient explanations for fear of
crime. We also flag that what we measure may not in itself be fear and may
be indicative of other social processes rather than a reflection of the char-
acteristics of a specific risky place.
According to Warr (2000, p.453), fear is “an emotion, a feeling of alarm
or dread caused by awareness of expectation of danger,” and feelings of
fear of crime cannot be described by “mathematical functions of actual risk
but are rather complex products of each individual’s experiences, memo-
ries, and relations to space” (Koskela, 1997, p.304). Ferraro (1995, p.8)
defines fear of crime as “an emotional reaction to dread or anxiety to crime
or symbols that a person associates with crime,” while Brantingham and
Brantingham (1995) describe the fear of crime as a complex concept that
includes fear of being attacked, suering physical harm and/or losing pri-
vacy and dignity. There are two important concepts that are relevant to
risky places, ‘dispositional fear’ and ‘situational fear.’ We now discuss each
of these concepts in more detail.
Dispositional Fear of Crime
This relates to the dierences between individuals’ propensities to experi-
ence fear of crime in dierent settings, and most research here has focused
on gender and age. Those who declare feeling the most unsafe include
women and girls, older adults, LGBQTI, or individuals with disabilities.
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 55
However, often, individuals have more than one vulnerable characteristic,
for example, gender and disability. In this book, we apply an intersectional
perspective on safety (Crenshaw, 1989) that, among other things, considers
individuals’ multiple identities and experiences as victims of crime. Fear of
crime is therefore not seen as a function of a characteristic of the individual
but because of the interaction between individuals’ various characteristics,
such as gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnic background, disability, and
socio-economic status.
Situational Fear
This refers to a transitory state of experiencing fear, for example, walk-
ing through a tunnel at night. The mechanisms linking fear of crime and
place characteristics are poorly understood, but research shows that they
are mediated by how crime and disorder aect neighborhoods (Shaw &
McKay, 1942; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Several other environmental char-
acteristics may also produce fear. The lack of clearly defined private-public
spaces aects perceived safety (Newman, 1972). At the same time, barriers,
walls, and the construction of a fortress environment can create a disrup-
tion of the urban fabric and generate suspicion and fear (Landman, 2012).
Fear and perceived risk of victimization can also vary temporally. Research
evidence shows that safety perceptions may vary over the time of day, from
weekdays to weekends or during dierent seasons. Drawing from evidence
from Sweden, Kronkvist (2024) suggest that unsafe locations are concen-
trated in space; there are also signs of spatial clustering and temporal sta-
bility of unsafe locations over time.
In addition to dispositional and situational factors, there are also
macro-societal changes that can influence fear. Examples include changes in
immigration and xenophobia, concerns about terrorism or contagion, the
proliferation of surveillance systems, and the privatization of security (Gra-
ham, 2008). Therefore, factors that are far removed from a risky place may
cause fear and vulnerability. Mass media coverage also has an important role
in this context (Beck, 1992). Indeed, feelings of instability and ‘ontological
security’ can arise from the fast pace of urban life, drastic changes in neigh-
borhoods and cities, or fluidity in the job market (Giddens, 1999).
Environmental Attributes Aecting Fear
Signs of physical deterioration were traditionally considered to be more
important determinants of fear of crime than actual incidences of crime.
Fear is associated with poor lighting at night, as it increases visibility
and reduces potential hiding places for attackers (Lorenc et al., 2013).
56 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
Security measures like locks, fencing, or secure entry systems can also
reduce fear. Some prevention measures, such as shutters and security
gates designed to reduce crime, may increase fear, creating more unpleas-
ant hostile atmospheres. Excessive security measures in the home are also
seen as unwelcoming and have been described as fortresses and prisons
(Lorenc et al., 2013).
Research has shown that acts of vandalism and disorder signs indicate
a neighborhood’s decline (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Increasing fear of
crime can be triggered by visible signs of physical deterioration, resulting
in individuals withdrawing from communities. This weakens informal
processes of social control that inhibit crime and disorder and produces a
decline in organizational life and the mobilization capacity of a neighbor-
hood. Fear, in the long run, can change the composition of resident popu-
lations stimulated by the cumulative eects of fear. However, as stated
earlier, the relationship between disorder, perception of disorder, and fear
is not straightforward.
Disorder serves as a visual reminder within a neighborhood that safety
may be compromised. However, perceptions of ‘disorder’ do not neces-
sarily equate to ‘actual disorder’ as reporting practices vary from place to
place. Harcourt and Wallace (2014) argue that it is unreasonable to assume
that interpretations of disorder are universally applicable. They suggest
that conventional indicators of neighborhood disorder, such as people loi-
tering at street corners, might reflect social control mechanisms that could
contribute to community safety. In contrast, perceptions of disorder, often
measured through expressed fears, are more likely to indicate the neighbor-
hood’s racial composition and the inclusivity of dierent ethnicities and
genders rather than the actual level of danger.
The relationship between disorder and crime is, therefore, particularly
problematic in places where disorder is not necessarily indicative of oend-
ing. What is known so far is that variations in perceptions of disorder, also
called ‘incivilities,’ are not primarily a result of neighborhood exposure to
crime or routine activities. They are a result of how individuals employ
racial, gender, or other stereotypes attached to a place to the people who
reside or spend time there. The concept of ‘othering’ helps proliferate fear
and is a possible candidate for why a place can be considered feared even if
it is not criminogenic. The implications of this are clear. If disorder percep-
tions and fear are motivated by reasons other than crime rates, reducing
disorder will not aect declared levels of fear as this is driven by other
visual cues and can vary dierent types of observers.
Additionally, reduction of the disorder may not even be desirable in
certain communities because residents understand that addressing ‘dis-
order’ may negatively impact other incomes, for example, panhandling
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 57
or negatively aecting a place’s identity. Major cities that have plenty of
vibrant areas have some level of controlled disorder that, despite the prob-
lems, makes these places welcoming, attractive, and perceived as safe. The
key is the scale of this controlled ‘disorder’ that creates the ‘right balance’
between disorder, inclusiveness, and safety.
The Impact of Fear
Fear of crime can impact individuals, communities, and society in sev-
eral ways. For individuals, it can lead to heightened anxiety, stress,
and psychological distress. Other psychological and emotional eects
include symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder,
which can aect levels of mobility. Individuals may change their daily
routines and behaviors to avoid potentially dangerous situations, for
example, avoiding certain places or only going there at certain times of
the day. Gray et al. (2011) distinguish between ‘functional’ and ‘dys-
functional’ fear. Dysfunctional fear can paralyze individuals, leading to
constrained mobility and avoidance of public spaces. Functional fear
leads to precautionary actions that may reduce both fear and risk of
victimization, such as carrying a ‘rape alarm’ or participating in activi-
ties such as night patrols or neighborhood watch schemes to increase
perceptions of safety.
The impact of fear can also have economic consequences for individuals,
businesses, and communities. People may avoid certain neighborhoods or
areas, leading to a decline in local businesses and property values. People
may not take up jobs if they do not perceive public transport to be safe and
do not have access to a car. Fear of crime and discrimination often aects
vulnerable populations disproportionately. Certain groups, such as women,
the elderly, and marginalized communities, often experience heightened lev-
els of fear. This can further exacerbate existing social inequalities and limit
opportunities for these groups. At the societal level, fear of crime may influ-
ence public opinion and shape criminal justice policies by imposing increased
surveillance measures, stricter laws, and harsher punishments.
There is a strong argument for integrating crime prevention into our sus-
tainability goals. Environmentally sustainable constructions will not attract
residents if they are fearful of living there (Paulsen, 2013). Fear of crime
is associated with the social, economic, and demographic characteristics of
areas and is also linked to the design and maintenance of urban spaces.
The previous two sections discussed conventional explanations for crime
and the associated fear of crime in risky places. We now consider some
of these approaches’ limitations and how systems thinking can help us
develop sustainable integrated crime prevention strategies.
58 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
3.5 Making Risky Places Safer: From Conventional
Approaches to Systems Thinking
Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) is a theoretical framework and practi-
cal approach to reducing criminal opportunities by modifying the imme-
diate environment where oending occurs (Clarke, 1995). The idea is to
manipulate specific situations that make criminal behavior less attractive,
more dicult, or riskier for potential oenders. Situational crime preven-
tion aims to intervene directly in the circumstances surrounding crime
events. Examples of situational crime prevention measures include install-
ing surveillance cameras, improving lighting in public spaces, implementing
access controls, or changing the design of buildings to minimize potential
hiding spots for criminals.
A range of action-oriented problem-solving tools and models have been
developed to support situational crime prevention, often referred to by
their easily rememberable acronyms. One example is the SARA (Scan-
ning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment) model, which provides a clear
pathway for problem-solving in community policing and crime prevention
(Eck & Spelman, 1987). Clarke and Webb (1999) suggested that goods
that were Concealable, Removable, Available, Valuable, Enjoyable, and
Disposable (CRAVED) were more likely to be stolen. Ekblom (2023) has
proposed the 5Is framework, which is designed to support best practices
for managing the complexities of real-world prevention. Later, Ratclie
(2018) developed a framework to support crime analysis, which outlined
key information analysts should consider, including Victims, Oenders,
Locations, Times, Attractors, Groups, and Enhancers (VOLTAGE). John-
son et al. (2015) developed the EMMIE framework to support evaluations
of crime prevention interventions. The key elements are the interventions:
Eect on crime; the Mechanisms by which it works; the Moderators, which
are where and with whom it works best; how to Implement it; and the Eco-
nomic cost. Chapter 9 discusses the more recent General Problem-Solving
Matrix (GPSM) General Problem-Solving Matrix (GPSM). This is not
intended as an extensive list, and we may have unintentionally missed sev-
eral other tools.
Diagrams can oer clear visual representations that clarify complex rela-
tionships and crime dynamics. Ekblom devised the Conjunction of Crim-
inal Opportunity (CCO) Framework to clarify the existing opportunity
theories for crime. He also broadened the scope to include crime promot-
ers. CCO explicitly focuses on the immediate causes of crime events rather
and oers more ‘hooks’ for wider systems thinking to connect with, for
example, how the various crime roles fit into wider society, how oenders
acquire dispositions, and the environmental conditions that generate readi-
ness to oend (Ekblom, 2023).
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 59
In Figure 3.5, we presented the crime triangle that provides a simple yet
powerful representation of the convergence factors necessary for a crime
to occur and situational prevention opportunities to address each of these.
Another method is the 25 techniques for situational prevention, developed
originally by Clarke and refined by Eck and Clarke (2019), to categorize
and organize strategies into an easily digestible format. This approach
allows for a comprehensive overview of possible interventions, facilitating
strategic planning and implementation in crime prevention.
Two related concepts are SCP and Crime Prevention Through Envi-
ronmental Design (CPTED). Both advocate environmental manipula-
tions intended to reduce opportunities for crime. CPTED originated in the
USA and is associated with design solutions in architecture and planning.
SCP originated in the UK and is much broader in scope, involving any
opportunity-reducing measures, whether of design, management, or even
policing, intended to increase the diculties or risks of oending (Clarke,
1989). More recently, there have also been a second and third generation
CPTED that emphasizes the role communities play in shaping their envi-
ronments to build local capacity for creating and maintaining safe places,
see e.g. the SafeGrowth concept in Mihinjac and Saville (2019).
Earlier in this chapter, we also reviewed SAT, which links the prevalence
of crime-prone people with the extent of criminogenic settings. This sug-
gests that eective crime prevention interventions must do more than mod-
ify environmental conditions. They also need to address how individuals
interpret and respond to those conditions. Despite focusing primarily on
individuals and not on places, expectations are that the theory can lead to
better crime prevention work because it considers the interaction between
the individual and the environment.
Criminologists and other professionals who advocate for a broader under-
standing of crime and delinquency have argued that situational crime preven-
tion models may oversimplify complex social issues, focusing on immediate
symptoms rather than structural causes (Clarke & Bowers, 2017). Addition-
ally, there are concerns about the potential displacement of crime to adja-
cent areas and the unequal impact of interventions on diverse communities
(Garland, 2000). Critics contend that an overreliance on specific situational
measures may lead to neglecting broader systemic factors contributing to
criminal behavior, which, per se, can also be seen as an advantage of the
model (Laycock & Tilley, 1995), given the fact that one of the goals of situ-
ational crime prevention is to understand why crime happens at particular
places at particular times and not explain why people commit crime.
We introduced the premise of situational crime prevention, based on iden-
tifying practical and action-focused interventions to reduce opportunities for
crime by manipulating a place’s built and physical environment. This approach
can be considered a conventional or reductionist approach to problem-solving.
60 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
In contrast to conventional approaches that address issues in isolation,
systems thinking recognizes the need to consider the intricate intercon-
nections within systems. To guide future refinements and foster a more
nuanced understanding of systems thinking, we outline in the following
some pertinent challenges of the conventional approaches to crime preven-
tion and the potential for systems thinking to alleviate these.
1. Beyond individual parts
2. Long term outcomes
3. The multiple interdependent scale
4. Specify boundaries
5. Leverage points
6. Shared goals
7. Unequal impact
8. Urban centric
9. Disciplinary specialization
10. The individual-environment interaction
1. Beyond Individual Parts
The ‘chant of specificity’ in problem-solving approaches to crime prevention
emphasizes crime-specific, place-specific, time-specific, and context-specific
interventions. However, in doing so, there are inherent risks that increase
the risk of developing fragmented approaches. Guided by systems think-
ing, ‘reassembly’ ensures that specific interventions can fit together into an
overarching strategy to address the complexities of crime. It is essential
to strike a balance, acknowledging that the reductionist paradigm may,
at times, extend too far in isolating elements without capturing the whole
picture, which is necessary when interventions are made.
2. Long Term Outcomes
A ‘quick fix’ might generate future unintended outcomes and make things
worse in the long term. Imagine the water level in the bathtub as the over-
all crime rate in a city. The faucet represents various contributing factors
to crime, for example, organized crime and social inequality, constantly
adding water to the tub. The drain represents the police and other crime
prevention measures, such as removing water from the tub. In this anal-
ogy, if the rate of water flowing in (structural causes of crime) exceeds the
rate at which the drain (short term crime prevention eorts) can remove
it, the water level (overall crime rate) in the bathtub will rise. This analogy
emphasizes the importance of not only addressing the immediate symp-
toms of crime but also understanding the underlying long-term causes.
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 61
3. The Multiple Interdependent Scale
In a globalized, increasingly changing world, eective governance should
consider the multiple interdependent scales of factors that aect crime
opportunities. Some are cultural and historic, deeply embedded in struc-
tures far beyond a risky facility or node. One example of how government
strategies can address this is acting upon the interlinkages in demand and
supply of drugs in countries of the Global North and drug production in
countries of the Global South. In the case of drug tracking, it involves
international cooperation, addressing economic disparities, and imple-
menting policies to reduce demand in developed countries.
4. Specific Boundaries
Another issue is that conventional approaches to situational crime pre-
vention may be too specific, and the boundaries may be too rigid. This
becomes an issue when the ‘parts’ do not provide enough information
about the whole system. SCP, while eective in the short term in specific
situations, does not reflect the broader system of the risky place. The parts,
specific interventions, are treated independently, which may miss essential
relationships, spillover eects, or unintended consequences.
As identified previously, the primary criticism of situational crime pre-
vention is that crime will be displaced (Guerette & Bowers, 2017). Six
types of displacement are identified in the literature, and three key con-
cepts are spatial displacement to another place, temporal displacement to
another time, and crime switch to a dierent type of crime. If an inter-
vention is introduced to a geographically defined place, then this assumes
the intervention will only influence that area or zone. However, whether
spatial displacement occurs or diusion of benefit, where positive impacts
extend beyond the intervention target areas, this brings into question the
defined boundary identified. Both displacement and diusion of benefit
may operate beyond the ‘intervention boundary,’ and both acknowledge
that the ‘target area’ is part of a broader system. This is before considering
whether the timing of the evaluation is appropriate to measure its impact,
as discussed further in Chapters 7–9 of this book.
5. Leverage Points
Rather than attempting to alter system behavior by implementing all con-
ceivable solutions, it is more eective to identify those interventions that
are most likely to produce a lasting impact. Meadows (2008) describes
a ‘leverage point’ as a place within a system where a small adjustment
can lead to substantial and sustained changes in behavior or outcomes.
These points are strategic areas for intervention, enabling focused eorts
62 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
to foster positive changes or avert negative outcomes (see Chapter 7 for
further details). It is crucial to have a thorough understanding of the system
in question and to base our intervention choices on robust evidence from
previous research.
6. Shared Goals
In many situational interventions, practitioners may have dierent goals
and are not aware of each other’s priorities, and intended outcomes are not
realized. Authorities may set the police a series of targets to reduce crime,
increase arrests, or rank performance across forces. If these targets are not
reached, they can result in fear and confusion, a lack of ownership, and even
disengagement among police ocers. Alternatively, targets may be ‘gamed’
to ensure they are met. This can result in misalignment between targets and
organizational performance, which creates unintended consequences, turn-
ing these entities into adversaries and hindering eective collaboration.
7. Unequal Impact
The principles of situational crime prevention are versatile because they
can be adapted to various situations and types of crime. However, the
impact of these interventions can vary among dierent city users. While
some individuals directly benefit from these measures, others may expe-
rience no eect or even negative repercussions. For instance, installing
CCTV cameras in public spaces is intended to enhance overall safety and
assist in crime prevention. However, the intended beneficiary (the general
public) may not perceive a direct personal advantage from such surveil-
lance. Instead, the primary beneficiaries are often law enforcement agen-
cies, who use these tools for crime detection and prevention.
8. Centric
Situational crime prevention has predominantly been applied and studied
in urban settings, where the density of opportunities for crime is higher.
However, this focus overlooks the fact that rural areas are also vulnerable
to crimes like property theft. Implementing situational crime prevention
strategies in rural contexts can help safeguard farms, agricultural equip-
ment, and rural homes. The eectiveness of crime prevention interventions
may vary across the rural-urban continuum (Ceccato & Abraham, 2022)
so solutions may or may not be the same as the ones in cities. Emerging
technologies, such as GPS tracking and drones for monitoring agricultural
assets, are beginning to be adopted. Nevertheless, evidence regarding their
eectiveness remains limited (Aransiola & Ceccato, 2020).
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 63
9. Disciplinary Specialization
Situational approaches would benefit from embracing a more interdis-
ciplinary take to address complex, multifaceted issues that often require
insights from multiple disciplines. Without interdisciplinary collaboration,
opportunities to combine diverse perspectives and approaches are missed,
potentially limiting innovation and the development of comprehensive
solutions. An example of the challenges and synergies faced by architects,
urban planners and criminologists when working in collaborative frame-
works were reported by Ceccato and Brantingham (2024).
10. The Individual-Environment Interaction
While the SAT aims to reconcile person and environment-oriented perspectives,
its primary focus is on elucidating why certain individuals commit crimes rather
than exploring why some places are more prone to crime and become risky.
Embracing new perspectives on situational crime prevention involves adopting
a receptive mindset and incorporating contemporary insight into the frame-
work. Systems thinking is a way forward. It encourages the search for inter-
dependencies, for example, to explore feedback loops within the system that
might explain a particular phenomenon, such as a crime reduction in a place.
In summary, we suggest revising some of the principles of situational
crime prevention by moving beyond fragmented approaches and advocat-
ing for a complementary long-term strategy through systems thinking. In
this chapter, we highlighted the pitfalls of short-term fixes, stressing the
importance of addressing crime’s underlying causes for sustainable reduc-
tion. Eective governance requires understanding the complex, interde-
pendent factors influencing crime, emphasizing strategic interventions
or leverage points to obtain expected outcomes. This approach calls for
shared goals among users and practitioners to prevent counterproductive
eects and demands a vision for the future. Moreover, the urban-centric
focus of these interventions overlooks rural contexts, where risky places
present specific challenges. An ever-increasing multifaceted nature of crime
requires collaboration across various fields, and cross-sectoral collabora-
tion is needed to address the complex dimensions of crime eectively.
3.6 Concluding Remarks
This chapter has reviewed some of our conventional theoretical underpin-
nings of crime in risky places. We explore factors that help understand
why crime concentrates at places and times, as well as the convergence of
factors that might influence this and increase potential opportunities for
oending. We reviewed how these theories and perspectives help us think
about crime at the key elements or risky places, which we break down
64 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
into risky facilities, risky nodes, and risky paths and journeys. We consider
these to be the building blocks to understanding crime in risky places.
A systems thinking approach requires an appreciation that we will never
know a system in its entirety and that we can only ever understand some
parts of a system. Indeed, we review the types of thinking needed to develop
a systems-rethinking approach and the limitations of our conventional the-
oretical approaches when doing so. Moreover, this discussion also prompts
us to consider the dierent configurations of these three key elements, risky
facilities, nodes, and paths in dierent geographical contexts. Adapting our
understanding and approaches to acknowledge these specificities is crucial,
ensuring that prevention and intervention strategies are eectively tailored
to these environments.
References
Adeniyi, O., Tura, F., & Newton, A. (2023) Analysing the eect of betting shops on
crime in England. Regional Studies, 57(11), 2252–2268.
Aransiola, T. J., & Ceccato, V. (2020) The role of modern technology in rural situational
crime prevention: A Review of the Literature. Rural Crime Prevention, 58–72.
Barclay, E., Donnermeyer, J. F., Doyle, B. P., & Talary, D. (2001) Property crime
victimisation and crime prevention on farms. Armidale: The Institute for Rural
Futures, University of New England.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Bowers, K. (2014) Risky facilities: Crime radiators or crime absorbers? A compari-
son of internal and external levels of theft. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
30, 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9208-z
Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1984) Patterns in crime. New York:
Macmillan.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993) Nodes, paths and edges: Consid-
erations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.
Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1995) Criminality of place: Crime generators
and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3, 5–26.
Castells, M. (1989) The informational city: Information technology, economic restruc-
turing, and the urban-regional process (Vol. 1, pp.76–77). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ceccato, V. (2007) Crime dynamics at Lithuanian borders. European Journal of
Criminology, 4(2), 131–160.
Ceccato, V. (2020) Safety in the making: An assessment of urban planners’ practices
in municipalities in Sweden. In Crime and fear in public places (pp.401–416).
London and New York: Routledge.
Ceccato, V., & Abraham, J. (2022) Crime and safety in the rural: Lessons from
research (p.123). Switzerland: Springer Cham.
Ceccato, V., Falk, Ö., Parsanezhad, P., & Tarandi, V. (2018) Crime in a Scandinavian
shopping centre. Retail Crime: International Evidence and Prevention, 179–213.
Ceccato, V., & Haining, R. (2004) Crime in border regions: The Scandinavian case
of Öresund, 1998–2001. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
94(4), 807–826.
Ceccato, V., & Brantingham, P. (2024) What is the role of architects and urban
planners in crime prevention? Security Journal, 1–26. (https://doi.org/10.1057/
s41284-024-00442-4)
Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places 65
Christaller, W. (1933) Die Zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland. Jena: Fischer.
Clarke, R. V. (1995) Situational crime prevention. Crime and Justice, 19, 91–150.
Clarke, R. V., & Bowers, K. (2017) Seven misconceptions of situational crime pre-
vention. In N. Tilley & A. Sidebottom (Eds.), Handbook of crime prevention
and community safety (pp.109–142). London: Routledge.
Clarke, R. V. G. (1989) Theoretical background to Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) and situational prevention. Design out crime,
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Conference Papers, 13–21.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Eck, J. (2003) Becoming a problem-solving crime analyst: In 55
small steps. London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Eck, J. (2007) Understanding risky facilities. In Tool Guide No. 6.
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.
Clarke, R. V. G., & Webb, B. (1999) Hot products: Understanding, anticipating
and reducing demand for stolen goods (Vol. 112). London: Home Oce, Polic-
ing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine
activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black
feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine. University of Chicago legal
forum, 1(8), 139–168. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Eck, J. E., & Clarke, R. V. (2019) Situational crime prevention: Theory, practice
and evidence. In Handbook on crime and deviance (pp.355–376). Switzerland:
Springer Cham.
Eck, J. E., & Spelman, W. (1987) Who ya gonna call? The police as problem-busters.
Crime and Delinquency, 33(1), 31–52.
Ekblom, P. (2017) Technology, opportunity, crime and crime prevention—current
and evolutionary perspectives. In B. Leclerc & E. Savona (Eds.), Crime preven-
tion in the 21st century. New York: Springer.
Ekblom, P. (2023) Crime frameworks. https://crimeframeworks.com/
Ferraro, K. F. (1995) Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Switzerland:
Springer Cham.
Garland, D. (2000) The culture of high crime societies. British Journal of Criminol-
ogy, 40(3), 347–375.
Getis, A., & Getis, J. (1966) Christaller’s central place theory. Journal of Geogra-
phy, 65(5), 220–226.
Giddens, A. (1999) Risk and responsibility. The Modern Law Review, 62(1).
Graham, S. (2008) Cities and the war on terror. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Indefensible space:
The architecture of the national insecurity state. New York and London: Routledge.
Gray, E., Jackson, J., & Farrall, S. (2011) Feelings and functions in the fear of
crime: Applying a new approach to victimisation insecurity. British Journal of
Criminology, 51(1), 75–94.
Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2017) Assessing the extent of crime displacement
and diusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations.
Crime Opportunity Theories, 529–566.
Hägerstrand, T. (1970) What about people in regional science. Regional Science
Association, 24.
Harcourt, B. E., & Wallace, D. (2014) Defining disorder. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weis-
burd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp.932–939).
New York, NY: Springer New York.
Harding, S. (2020) County lines: Exploitation and drug dealing among urban street
gangs. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Hernández Ramírez, J. L. (2024) A geographic intelligence model of criminal
groups: A study of cargo theft on Mexican highways (Doctoral dissertation,
UCL (University College London)).
66 Revisiting the Theoretical Foundations of Risky Places
Jacobs, J. (1961) The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage
Books.
Johnson, S. D., Tilley, N., & Bowers, K. (2015) Introducing EMMIE: An evidence
rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 459–473. https://doi-org.uc.idm.
oclc.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9238-7
Justus, M., Ceccato, V., Moreira, G. C., & Kahn, T. (2018) Crime against trading:
The case of cargo theft in Sao Paulo. In Retail crime: International evidence and
prevention (pp.297–323). Switzerland: Springer Cham.
Kennedy, L. W., & Caplan, J. M. (2012) A theory of risky places. http://www.rut-
gerscps.org/docs/RiskTheoryBrief_web.pdf
Koch, R. (2011) The 80/20 principle: The secret of achieving more with less: Updated
20th anniversary edition of the productivity and business classic. Hachette, UK.
Koskela, H. (1997) ‘Bold Walk and Breakings’: Women’s spatial confidence versus
fear of violence. Gender, Place & Culture, 4(3), 301–320.
Kronkvist, K. (2024) Placing perceptions of unsafety: Examining spatial con-
centrations and temporal patterns of unsafe locations at micro-places. Jour-
nal of Quantitative Criminology, 40, 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10940-022-09565-6
Landman, K. (2012) Reconsidering crime and urban fortification in South Africa. In V.
Ceccato (Ed.), The urban fabric of crime and fear (pp.85–110). Dordrecht: Springer.
Laycock, G., & Tilley, N. (1995) Policing and neighbourhood watch: Strategic
issues. London: Home Oce Police Research Group.
Linning, S. J., & Eck, J. E. (2021) Whose ‘eyes on the street ’ control crime? Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lorenc, T., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., Neary, D., Clayton, S., Wright, K.,
Thomson, H., Cummins, S., Sowden, A., & Renton, A. (2013) Fear of crime
and the environment: Systematic review of UK qualitative evidence. BMC Public
Health, 13, 496.
Lynch, K. (1960) The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Meadows, D. H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT:
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mihinjac, M., & Saville, G. (2019) Third-Generation Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED). Social Sciences, 8(6), 182. https://doi.org/
10.3390/socsci8060182
Mythen, G. (2017) Understanding the risk society: Crime, security and justice.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Newman, O. (1972) Defensible space; crime prevention through urban design.
New York: Macmillan.
Paulsen, D. J. (2013) Crime and planning. Planning sustainable communities. Lon-
don: CRC Press.
Ratclie, J. (2018) Reducing crime: A companion for police leaders. New York:
Routledge.
Rodrigue, J. P. (2024) The geography of transport systems (6th ed.). New York:
Routledge.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997) Neighborhoods and violent
crime: A multilevel study of collective ecacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas
(pp.176–185). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Shelley, F. M., & Metz, R. (2017) Geography of tracking: From drug smuggling
to modern-day slavery