cctv and its effect on the perception of safety

7/29/2019 CCTV and Its Effect on the Perception of Safety

1/65

CCTV and Its Effect on the Perception of Safety

Author: Job Willemsen

MSc. Terrorism, Security and PolicingDepartment of Criminology

University of Leicester

Word count: 19.543


2/65

1

AbstractThe resulting figures of this research might illuminate some effects of Closed Circuit

Television (CCTV). CCTV is widely used in the UK with a large amount of money

spent by the government and private companies. The initial anticipated effects seem

insufficient and therefore the side effects come into the picture. These side effects

have not been researched adequately and therefore this research, with a simple buteffective methodology, could contribute significantly to understanding on the

subject. As new arguments are being used to justify the expansion of CCTV it seems

that these new arguments should be thoroughly researched. The main problem this

research intends to solve is what the effect of CCTV is on the perception of safety.

As the research methodology allows investigation of several other factors in relation

to the perception of safety, it includes questions concerning CCTV, victimisation and

support for CCTV. The methodology followed is a questionnaire put to 500 students,

split into two groups; the questionnaire asks students to rate several pictures with

CCTV and edited pictures without CCTV on the chance they think they could be

victimised in that area. Besides this main part of the research students are asked

several questions about victimisation, demographics and their support for CCTV,

allowing the results to be placed into a wider perspective. The results show a

relatively low but significant improvement of the perception of safety by 5.5-6%.

These results are closely related to how effective the participant thinks CCTV is. As

the perception of the participant concerning CCTV is closely related to how CCTV is

portrayed in the media the effect of CCTV on the perception of safety is likely to

differ between place and time, and therefore caution should be taken when

generalising the results to other areas and times.


3/65

2

ContentsABSTRACT 1

INTRODUCTION 3

LITERATURE REVIEW 6

HISTORY AND POLITICS OF CCTV 6DOES CCTV WORK? 11

EFFECT OF CCTV 13

DEMOGRAPHICS 14

VICTIMISATION AND SUPPORT FOR CCTV 15

WHAT RESEARCH IS MISSING 18

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES NEW RESEARCH 19

METHODOLOGY 21

RESEARCH PROBLEM 21

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 22

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 23

RESEARCH PURPOSE 24

HYPOTHESIS 25

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25

ANALYSING THE RESULTS 30

EFFECT OF CCTV 30

DEMOGRAPHICS 32


DEMOGRAPHICS, SUPPORT AND VICTIMS OF CRIME 33

ETHICS 33

ANALYSIS 35

EFFECT OF CCTV 38

DEMOGRAPHICS 41



DISCUSSION 50

THE EFFECT OF CCTV 50

DEMOGRAPHICS 51

SUPPORT AND VICTIMS OF CRIME 51


CONCLUSION 54

REFERENCE LIST 57APPENDICES 61

QUESTIONNAIRE PICTURES 61


4/65

3

Introduction

The UK has been often referred to as the most surveilled country in the world and it

is recognised as the country with the highest amount of CCTV in the world

(McCahill & Norris, 2002; Gerrard & Thompson, 2011). This research will discuss

how several events and public opinion have contributed to the growth of CCTV

which occurs to this day. Interestingly, the effects of CCTV are not clear and the

research often referred to as an argument for the installation of new systems has

flaws or is used to form incorrect conclusions (Gill & Spriggs, 2005; Welsh &

Farrington, 2003). Therefore, this research will give an overview of the current

situation and research concerning CCTV. This research will show that the argument

for CCTV preventing crime and assisting in the arrest of criminals is rather weak.

Some of the other arguments have become more important and should be

investigated. The main argument that will be looked at in this research is that CCTV

creates a better feeling of safety. This is becoming one of the new arguments now

that CCTV is proving to be less effective in preventing crime and catching criminals

than previously thought. To do all this several chapters have been made, beginning

with the literary review which is separated into several topics. The first discusses the

history and politics of CCTV in the UK, and tells how CCTV was first introducedand gradually found its way to the market; it tells how the murder of James Bulger

and the Bishopsgate bombings (Sasse, 2010; Smith, 1995) created large support for

CCTV from the public. This support led to a change in thinking from the Labour

Party, and City Challenge Competitions were a great success and were used by the

government to subsidise the installation of more CCTV systems.

The following part will then investigate the problems surrounding the research into

the effectiveness of CCTV. It will show that CCTV is not as effective in preventing

crime or helping the investigation of serious crimes as previously thought. Several

researchers will be mentioned and a conclusion will be drawn from these researches.

After this has been done the main subjects of this research will be discussed. Again,

existing research will be looked at, and the several possible answers to the research

questions will be discussed. The topics will be as follows: the effect CCTV has on

the perception of crime; whether or not the demographical data could prove

differences in the effect CCTV has on the perception of crime; whether or not


5/65

4

victimisation and support for CCTV are being affected by CCTV and the perceived

safety it creates. This will then be immediately followed by a discussion of what

research is still missing on CCTV and what possible outcomes these gaps in

knowledge might provide were they to be filled in.

The methodology is the following chapter. In the methodology the first part will

discuss in detail what problem this research is trying to solve. The second part will

try to identify potential problems in researching this subject and will discuss why

other research is not sufficient to answer this question. The third part will formulate

the actual questions this research is trying to answer and discuss how the results

connect with the aims and purposes of this research. A hypothesis will be given right

after. The actual research approach or research methodology is then discussed in

detail, and it explains how the questionnaire is set up, how the participants are

recruited and what the questions in the questionnaire will be and why they are

important. Separate paragraphs will then explain in detail how the results of the

questionnaire will be analysed and what calculations are being taken to reach the

answers that this research aims to find. To do this the same structure as that used in

the other chapters will be used, looking into the effect of CCTV on the perception of

crime, followed by the demographics, victimisation and support for CCTV. One part

will be added which will also return in the following chapters: demographics,

victimisation and support, and the ways in which these parts are connected to each

other will be discussed.

Once it is clear from the methodology what this research is investigating and how the

research is going to be carried out the analysis will be shown. The analysis chapter

uses the same sections as have been used throughout the methodology; it does,

however, start with some figures about the participant group before continuing

towards the regular parts, which then follow the same structure as the other chapters.

These again start with the effect of CCTV on the perception of safety, followed by

the demographics, victimisation, support and their relationship towards CCTV and

the effect on the perception of safety. The final part will then discuss the relationship

between the demographics, victimisation and the support for CCTV.


6/65

5

As mentioned, the discussion chapter which follows the analysis will use the same

parts as the analysis with an exception for the description of the participant group.

The discussion will use these sections to connect the results from the analysis to the

results from the literature review. It will show that the initial research which showed

that CCTV has a positive effect on the perception of safety are correct, and that some

of the expectations created from the results of other research are incorrect. It shows,

for example, that women are not less positively influenced by CCTV than men, and

that British and white people are not more positive towards CCTV compared to the

other groups. It also proves that people who have a non-white race are not more

negative towards CCTV as one would expect from previous research. Besides these,

there are several more matters which give a more thorough understanding of how

people perceive CCTV and why they perceive it as they do. The conclusion then

gives a brief overview of what has been discussed and concluded in this research.

This information will then be linked with the current situation and how it could be

used. The information drawn from this research tests various uncertainties about

CCTV and the perception of safety, and contributes to the evaluation of how much

value should be given to CCTV. This is important as the results of CCTV are

difficult to research and the amount of financial resources used in the UK for

expanding the amount of CCTV and to keep current systems running are extremely

high.


7/65

6

Literature review:

As explained in the Introduction, the first chapter of this research discusses the

background for the research question and also shows why the research gaps or

research with uncertain results should be replaced. To do this in an appropriate and

logical manner the first chapter has been divided into several parts, taking the reader

through the relevant information available at the time of this research being written.

The first part will discuss the history and politics of CCTV in the United Kingdom.

It guides the reader through the most important events and how these have

contributed to the current situation. The following three sections will also be used as

sections in the other chapters throughout this research. The first of these three

sections takes a better look at research carried out into the effectiveness of CCTV. Itseeks to find an answer as to whether or not the effects of CCTV are what people

think they are, and to find out whether some of the arguments proponents and

sceptics use for or against CCTV are right. The following section discusses whether

demographical features are expected to have an effect on how people perceive CCTV

and what it is that could cause these effects. The part after this tries to find whether

or not other research found a relationship between victimisation, support and CCTV.

As the information from these parts gives a good overview and plenty of background

information the part after will discuss what is missing in the current knowledge of

CCTV. The final part of this chapter then discusses what results are possible for

these gaps in knowledge and how important the possible results could be in

contributing to current knowledge.

History and Politics:

The United Kingdom is the most surveilled country in the world, with estimates

ranging from 1.85 to 4.2 million CCTV cameras installed (McCahill & Norris, 2002;

Gerrard & Thompson, 2011). This chapter will look into how the growth from the

1960s until now took place. CCTV was introduced in the UK by a private company

called Photoscan (McCahill & Norris, 2002). As the first company selling CCTV it

had success and this success came mainly from the focus on the private retail

industry which used CCTV systems in order to deter and apprehend shoplifters.

From this moment of the introduction by Photoscan the market for CCTV systems

has seen a steady growth of CCTV usage in the retail sector. It did not take the


8/65

7

government much longer to start using CCTV. During the 70s and 80s a small

growth of CCTV surveillance in public spaces occurred (Williams, 2003; McCahill

& Norris, 2002). The main purpose was to surveil at rally points for demonstrations

and in and around football stadiums. In 1974 the central integrated traffic control

system was introduced. This system was supposed to increase the traffic flow in

London and consisted of 145 cameras (Manwaring-White, 1983; McCahill & Norris,

2002). Even though this system was introduced to increase the traffic flow the

Metropolitan Police soon found that the system could be very useful for monitoring

demonstrations and other incidents and started using it for such (McCahill & Norris,

2002; BSSRS, 1985). In 1975 the London Transport Executive would be the first to

introduce permanent surveillance using the expensive but already present cabling to

surveil their stations (McCahill & Norris, 2002). It took until 1985 before

Bournemouth became the first city ready to invest in the placement of the expensive

cabling to install permanent city centre surveillance (McCahill & Norris, 2002).

CCTV then saw a slow growth until 1992 when the use of CCTV for street

surveillance started to rise rapidly as the financial means became available and the

costs of installing the permanent CCTV systems were lowered (Williams, 2003). The

initiative for installing these systems was often taken by innovative individuals.

A large proportion of the incredible amount of CCTV which the UK now has

compared to other western countries can be explained by the political drive for

safety. This drive did not exist as strongly before the beginning of the 1990s. During

the 70s and 80s when CCTV just started to show up in public spaces the public

opinion mainly consisted of fear for what the cameras could be used for. This fear

existed for possible use against trade unions, activists and possible racist or

aggressive policing (Manwaring-White, 1983; McCahill & Norris, 2002). This

negative view of CCTV was enforced by the lack of democratic control about what

the systems would be used for (McCahill and Norris, 2002). From 1992 the political

attitude towards CCTV was rising. From the 80s till 1992 recorded crime also

increased rapidly. Even the increased police budget at the time did not seem to stop

the crime levels from rising (Audit Commission, 1993; Tilley, 2005). This growing

problem caused politicians to search for a solution which led to the creation of the

Audit Commission to research the problem. The Audit Commission was told to focus

its research on solutions which would bring the best value for money. The final


9/65

8

report which the Audit Commission delivered sketched a future with increasingly

higher crime rates if no appropriate measures were taken. It was also found that the

increased use of CCTV could cause a turn around as it was at the time considered to

have been proven to be very effective. This considered effectiveness was based on

research done in Airdrie (Audit Commission, 1993). This research showed a 75%

reduction in recorded crime and a 71% increase in the clear-up rates (Audit

Commission, 1993). Later however, these figures were shown to have some flaws,

and later research showed that after calculating seasonal trends and other variables

the decrease of crime was only 21% and the clear-up rate did not rise higher than

16% (Short & Ditton, 1996). The positive outcomes from the Audit Commission,

combined with the governments desire to involve the private sector more in its

policies, would cause a boost towards the increase of CCTV (McCahill & Norris,

2002). Shortly after the results of the Audit Commission (1993) were released the

abduction of James Bulger was caught on CCTV, and the Bishopsgate bombing then

took away many of the doubts some citizens had previously had relating to CCTV

(Sasse, 2010; Smith, 1995; McCahill & Norris, 2002). The low support for CCTV by

the public was the final obstacle, which had then been taken away by the previously

mentioned events. The changed attitude of the public caused the Labour Party to

change its standpoint on CCTV and many local councils were now in favour of the

installation of more CCTV (McCahill & Norris, 2002). They used the now

commonly used nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument, basically telling the

public that as long as they did not commit any serious crimes they would not have

anything to fear from CCTV; in other words they would not feel any consequences,

excepting lower crime rates.

In 1994 the support for more CCTV by local councils was shown by the great

success of the City Challenge Competitions (CCC). These CCCs consisted of

opportunities offered to local councils which could participate and apply for funding

for up to 50% of the installation of new CCTV systems; the remaining 50%, as well

as maintenance costs, would have to come from other sources. This other 50% often

came from private sources and therefore created more involvement of the private

sector, which the new government wanted to involve at the time. The success of this

scheme becomes evident when looking at the amount of applications made. Initially

the Home Office set aside 2 million for CCCs, but this was increased to 5 million


10/65

9

because of the large amount of requests (480) (McCahill & Norris). Eventually they

gave 106 of these requests a grant for the first CCC (McCahil & Norris, 2002). The

success of the first CCC not only caused the Home Office to raise the initial 2

million contribution to 5 million, but also made them follow up with three other

CCCs until 1999 for which the total amount of funding had increased rapidly. The

total amount invested by the government in these three new CCCs was 34 million,

and 51 million was raised from other financial means to install new CCTV systems

(McCahill & Norris, 2002). The change of government to Labour in the 1990s was

expected to put a hold on any new CCCs. This did not turn out to be the case, as the

Labour government soon made public that they reserved 153 million for the

expansion of CCTV in the following three years, a sum which was eventually raised

to 170 million (Squires, 2010; McCahill & Norris, 2002). It is safe to say that these

CCCs greatly boosted the amount of CCTV cameras in public areas, though the costs

above only account for the placement of the systems and do not include maintenance

or monitoring costs. During the years between 1992 and 2002 the support for CCTV

from the British public was large. People raising questions about effectiveness and

privacy matters were often not taken seriously. Slowly however, the questions about

the effectiveness of CCTV were rising and some of the original research was shown

to have some major flaws. This negative feedback did not stop the CCTV market

from growing (Short & Ditton, 1995). A change in attitude towards CCTV was,

however, established, and instead of just building new systems the central

government started to focus on integrating systems and expanding existing projects

(Webster, 2009). Between 2004 and 2008 the entire CCTV markets estimated

growth was about 15% (Market and Business Development, 2007). Even the

recession in 2009 did not stop the growth and it is expected that the London 2012

Olympics will cause a further growth.(Market and Business Development, 2007).

During the introduction of public CCTV, which has been supported by the majority

of the population, the private CCTV sector has also expanded. CCTV has been

introduced in many shops, offices, other private property and semi-public spaces.

Even though there are no exact numbers concerning the amount of cameras installed

in public spaces it is generallyaccepted that the UK has the most surveilled

population in the world (Gill et al., 2007). Estimates range from 4.2 million in 2002

(McCahill & Norris, 2003), to a more recent research in 2010 estimating 1.85 million


11/65

10

cameras in public spaces within the UK (Gerrard & Thompson, 2011). As can be

seen, there is a big difference between the estimates of 2002 and 2010, and if both

are correct this would indicate a significant decrease in CCTV cameras. As shown

before, however, this is not the case as the amount of CCTV systems has grown in

the last decades. It is therefore easy to conclude that at least one of these pieces of

research is incorrect. Looking at the research methods of both the estimates it shows

that the 4.2 million is based on an extrapolation from the amount of CCTV cameras

found in two busy shopping streets in London (McCahill & Norris, 2002). It is

therefore unlikely that this number is very accurate, and it is not surprising that the

number is widely called into question by several academics despite it being widely

used by the media.

The methodology from the 2010 research seems a lot better, though still not perfect.

This research counts the cameras in Cheshire and extrapolates them to the entire UK.

If the Cheshire estimate of 1.85 million is close to the actual amount of CCTV

cameras this would mean that there is one camera for every 33.5 people living in the

UK (Gerrard & Thompson, 2011). Compared to other countries this is still very

high. As the CCTV market is still growing in the UK and most other western

countries it will be interesting to see whether or not this should be seen as a positive

or negative.


12/65

11

Does CCTV work?

There are several theories which could be used to support the hypothesis that CCTV

has a positive effect on crime. The most important of surveillance theory on this

subject is panoptic theory. According to panoptic theory, the notion of the possibility

of being watched by an authoritative figure strengthens the self-control of an

individual (Foucalt, 1977). CCTV, therefore, would show the possible offender that

he or she might be watched and, as a consequence, could be punished for his or her

actions. This should then stop some of the offenders from committing crimes.

However, several pieces of research have been conducted into the effectiveness,

costs and the effect of safety perception. One research showed that CCTV lowered

crime statistically significantly in high- and medium-risk car parks and lowered it

insignificantly in low-risk car parks during the period of measuring. However, the

police caught one offender who may possibly have been responsible for multiple

crimes in these car parks (Gill & Spriggs, 2005; Welsh & Farrington, 2003). In this

research other areas, such as city centres and urban areas, did not show a significant

decrease in crime and some even showed an increase in recorded crime. The writer

acknowledged that no real reduction had been accomplished and that CCTV did not

really make people feel safer, but did say that CCTV can help in solving high profile

cases, and CCTV pictures that can be used in court can be passed on to police (Gill

& Spriggs, 2005).

In the national CCTV strategy (Home Office, 2005) the problems of using crime

rates to assess the effectiveness of CCTV are highlighted again. They conclude

basically the same as Gill & Spriggs (2005). The use of CCTV in itself is not very

effective in lowering crime rates (Welsh & Farrington, 2003). It does, however,

deliver support by reducing police time, increasing the detection rates and delivers

supporting evidence which causes court trials to be more effective as the process

speed is increased and more people are found guilty (Home Office, 2005).

Most research into the effectiveness of CCTV in reducing crime, such as the research

discussed above (Gill & Spriggs, 2005), have not found reliable enough data to prove

that there is a reducing effect on crime. Welsh and Farrington (2003) have selected

22 pieces of research which they find credible enough to combine in order to draw

conclusions on the effectiveness. Their conclusion is that the decrease in crime


13/65

12

averages at just 4%, which is not even nearly as high as previously and currently

thought by most people (Welsh & Farrington, 2003). Interestingly the positive results

all come from Great Britain and the decreasing effect is not found for violent crimes.

There are however factors which have to be considered concerning the 4% decrease

in crime. Even though the combined researches have a reasonable reliability in

showing that there has been a decrease in crime, there are some factors which have to

be considered. Firstly, there might have been displacement (Waples, Gill & Fisher,

2009). It has been recognised by several researchers (Phillips, 1999; Waples, Gill &

Fisher, 2009) that the placement of CCTV causes crime to shift to other areas where

CCTV has not yet been installed. As measurements of crime in surrounding areas are

not included by Welsh and Farrington (2003) there is no way of knowing how much

displacement there is, if any. Another possibility which could account for the

decrease in crime is the increase of police interest, as it is likely that the police are

aware of when research is taking place. Even when possible displacement and

increased police interest are taken into account a decrease of 4% in crime is in itself

not enough to justify the amount of money spent on CCTV.

The decrease in crime as discussed above is, however, not the only purpose CCTV

serves. One of the other main factors mentioned by people supporting CCTV as a

measure is that CCTV is a useful tool for gathering evidence. However, the

usefulness of CCTV in gathering evidence is also in dispute. One of the most

important pieces of evidence suggesting that CCTV is not effective enough for use as

evidence in criminal cases comes from an internal report from the Metropolitan

Police. In this report Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville estimates that every

1000 CCTV cameras in London solve less than one crime, and that only 3% of total

convictions in London are solved by CCTV (Bowcott, 2008; Sasse, 2010: Hope,

2009). One of the main problems for the use of CCTV in court is the admissibility of

CCTV footage as evidence. According to the police, about 80% of the CCTV footage

in Britain is inadmissible in court and cannot be used.

Other sources from within the police respond on the conclusions drawn by Neville

(Bowcott, 2008), saying that CCTV is useful in investigations. They argue that

CCTV is helpful in identifying criminals and that CCTV footage often contains

valuable information concerning what actually happened at a crime scene. They also

argue that confronting suspects with the CCTV footage often helps to persuade


14/65

13

offenders to admit to the crimes they have committed. These sources argue that

CCTV does have a positive effect on investigations even if the footage is not

admissible to court (Metropolitan Police, 2010; Metropolitan Police, 2011). Besides

all of these possible positive uses of CCTV it has also been mentioned by several

researchers that CCTV could be used to increase the effectiveness of the police force.

These researchers argue that CCTV allows the police to have a faster response time,

and that management and deployment of the police force is more effective as the

camera operators are able to see exactly where and when events are unfolding. Less

time is wasted in waiting for people to call, or dealing with fake calls, and so on. No

research has been done on this matter yet, as it would require a large amount of

cooperation from the police force, and even then it would be difficult to decide on a

reliable method of measuring the effects.

Effect of CCTV:

The public and British government seem to put a lot of trust in the effectiveness of

CCTV and so one would assume that this leads them to feel safer in areas with

cameras (Webster, 2009). There has been some research into this subject and the

results are mixed. Ditton (2000), for example, carried out some research in Glasgow

city centre which did not discover a better perception of safety (Noije & Wittebrood,

2008). He concludes that people seem to think that CCTV is better at deterring

crime, but they also think that the presence of police officers could make people feel

safer. If this is correct, there might be some serious issues with the effectiveness of

CCTV. As shown before, deterrence and usefulness for investigations are far from

persuasive arguments for the use of CCTV, and the perception of safety is often

mentioned as one of the main benefits for the use of cameras. Some research

(Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2002) shows an increase in the

perception of safety. Koskela (2002), however, finds that women mistrust CCTV

more often than men because the camera itself cannot do anything to prevent or halt

the situation in which they might find themselves. Koskela (2002) points out that this

might especially be the case when concerning violence and sexual assault. Others

have pointed out that homeless citizens see CCTV as a repressive tool used against

them (Doherty et al., 2008; Zedner, 2003; Hempel & Tpfer, 2004).


15/65

14

Gill and Spriggs (2005) have a different conclusion. Even though the levels of worry

about crime levels dropped significantly in a few of their testing areas they find that

this decrease in the perception of crime is actually caused by people who were not

aware that there were any cameras in the area. This obviously means that people do

not feel safer because of the cameras but because of other factors. They take it even

further when they find that people who notice the cameras have a higher worry about

crime than people who do not notice them. This result, Gill and Spriggs (2005)

deduce, could mean two things: either the people who are aware of the cameras are

more security conscious or the CCTV cameras actually have a negative effect on the

levels of worry about crime. As the perception of safety is often used as an argument

by supporters of CCTV and it is still not clear whether or not it actually increases or

decreases feelings of safety, which creates an interesting knowledge gap to

investigate. This gap in knowledge could prove to be positive, negative or neutral, as

there are causes and theories to support each attitude towards CCTV.

Demographics:

Koskela (2002) has suggested that the support for CCTV is most likely to increase

with increased vulnerability of a person. Hempel and Tpfer (2004), however, show

no relevant difference between males and females. Another research (Honess &

Charman, 1992) does, however, find a difference between males and females.

Females are less worried about the placement of CCTV. The difference in attitudes

between males and females in this research also shows in the results of questions

concerning their trust in CCTV operators, where females are significantly less likely

to respond negatively. Interestingly, however, this research also finds that females

think CCTV is less likely to prevent them from becoming a victim of the more

serious types of crime. Honess and Charman (1992) donot find a significant

difference between people with a different nationality from the place they were

interviewed. Hempel and Tpfer (2004), however, found that the support for CCTV

is significantly higher in participants selected in Britain than in selected participants

in other European countries. Hempel and Tpfer (2004) also find some other

significant results with regard to the support of CCTV and demographics. Apparently

the younger the person asked the more likely it is that he or she will have a negative

attitude towards CCTV. Hempel and Tpfer (2004) claim that this is caused by the


16/65

15

shift in the purpose of CCTV. CCTV is now also used to maintain social order and

not only to prevent and investigate more serious crimes, and as youth would be more

likely to commit these types of offences they feel as though they are being controlled

and having to adjust their behaviour when monitored. It is therefore not surprising

that Hempel and Tpfer (2004) also find that homeless people and prostitutes feel

that CCTV is not there to protect them but more to control them, as they think that

CCTV is there to protect the general public from them (Doherty et al., 2007; Zedner,

2003; Hempel & Tpfer, 2004). Taking this into consideration, it will be interesting

to find whether or not people from minority races in Britain feel more negative, as

they might have been targeted more by CCTV because of possible prejudiced

attitudes of camera operators.

The previous paragraph already showed that nationality and age can be indicators of

how people perceive CCTV. The younger the person the bigger the chance he or she

will be against it. It is important that this hypothesis is tested again to find out

whether or not this statement is correct, as well as whether the reason is age itself or

with this particular generation. Information about this will broaden knowledge and

understanding of how people perceive CCTV, and how this knowledge can be

implemented in new policies. Previous research into the perception of CCTV

indicates that British citizens seem to be more positive about CCTV and confirming

or invalidating this statement might give valuable information about how CCTV is

perceived by the public.

Victimisation & Support:

Even though much is still unclear about the effects of CCTV on crime rates and the

perception of safety, it is clear that the opinions of the public regarding CCTV are

mostly positive (Flight, Hulshof, & Roorda, 2008). This positive attitude towards

CCTV also becomes apparent when looking at the results of research into the

perception of the effectiveness of CCTV. The support for additional CCTV systems

could count on a support between 55% and 90% (Spriggs et al., 2005; Ditton, 2000;

Gill et al., 2007; Phillips, 1999).These results are surprising as the effects of CCTV

have been disputed by research for almost a decade now. According to Webster

(2009) public opinion is formed on the misconception that CCTV works and that its


17/65

16

primary function is to stop crime and protect the public. These public perceptions

also show in other research. Honess and Charman (1992), for example, researched

public opinion on the perceived possible uses and effectiveness of CCTV. The results

of their research show that 92% of the public believe that CCTV could be used for

catching criminals, 79% believe that it can be used to scare off potential offenders,

and 57% believe that it can make people feel safe and stop trouble (Honess &

Charman, 1992; Groombridge, 1995). These figures show that a high proportion of

the public believe in the possibilities of CCTV. Where CCTV is used for catching

criminals and scaring off potential offenders the results are not as high as most

people expect. It is therefore interesting to see the following part of the research

concerning the perceived effectiveness and see if the public overestimates the

effectiveness of CCTV. The results from Honess and Charman (1992) also show that

the respondents have a high belief in the effectiveness of CCTV: 74% believe it is

effective for crime detection, 62% for crime prevention, and 53% think it is effective

in making people feel safer. As the actual effectiveness of CCTV is a lot lower this is

a huge overestimation of its effects. This overestimationof the effectiveness of

CCTV by the public is also shown in other research done into the public perception

of CCTV (Gill, Bryan & Allen, 2007; Bennett & Gelsthorpe, 1996; Sarno, Hough, &

Bulos, 1999; Hempel & Tpfer, 2004). Several researchers have shown that support

for CCTV drops after installation (Gill, Bryan & Allen, 2007). This would be an

obvious result of the overestimation of the functions and results accomplished by

CCTV. Webster (2009), however, points out that there is another misconception that

the public has about CCTV. The goals intended by the use of CCTV where it is used

to deter and catch criminals it shifted towards community level and it is now used to

deter antisocial behaviour. As this is unclear for most of the public it also contributes

to a disappointment concerning the effectiveness in deterring crime and use of CCTV

in catching the more serious types of criminal. Another interesting conclusion of

Hempel & Tpfers research (2004) is that the support for certain types of CCTV,

such as traffic cameras, is largely created by the way the media represents the

possibilities the particular type of CCTV offers. This idea is in line with the theory of

empiricism (McCord, 2004), which is the idea that our perception of the world

around us is based on what an individual has perceived. In this case people perceive

the effects of CCTV mainly from what the media shows; as most have not perceived

the effects CCTV has in different ways they are likely to perceive the effectiveness


18/65

17

of CCTV in the same way as the media portrays it to be (McCord, 2004). Not all will

have their opinion on this matter from the media as there are several other ways in

which they might have perceived the effectiveness of CCTV. These include

victimisation where there was CCTV footage of an incident, hearing about CCTV

from others and possibly because they are caught or addressed because of something

they do that is caught on CCTV. Empiricism can also be used to explain the rise of

support for CCTV after the murder of James Bulger and the Bishopsgate bombing

discussed in the earlier section on the History and Politics of CCTV (Smith, 1995;

McCord, 2004). And looking at the previous part there might be a case of a circular

process in which the public causes the politicians to become more positive

concerning CCTV; when politicians become positive about CCTV and make

speeches in public they are reinforcing the positive image the population has about

CCTV (Webster, 2009). This would explain why the population currently seems to

expect more positive results from CCTV than it actually offers, as opinion has been

reformed by the media, as well as the possible idea of the current generation that

technology often brings the best solutions. Another possibility, stated by Webster

(2009), is that the support for CCTV is partly based on the populationsbelief in

technology as a problem solver. If the support for CCTV does not have good

correlation with the effect CCTV has on the perception of safety it will indicate that

many researchers have analysed work which is not relevant. This is caused by them

using the support for CCTV to see whether or not the installation of CCTV increased

the feelings of safety.

There has not been much research into the relationship between the effects of the

presence of CCTV on the perception of safety and the effect it has on support for

victims of crime. There is research, however, which suggests that victims would feel

less safe overall (Gill et al, 2007). This could lead to them being more security

conscious and therefore likely to view CCTV more positively or negatively than

others. These people might feel that CCTV does not help as they have been let down

already. Any extra research into this subject would help as current knowledge is very

limited.


19/65

18

What research is missing

As shown when discussing the history and politics of CCTV in the UK a large sum

of money has been invested in the installation of CCTV in the UK, even though there

is no clear overview of what the effects of CCTV are. The expectation is that the

CCTV market will keep growing in the UK. The growth is, and has been, supported

by strong support from the public and politicians based on what they believe to be its

effectiveness in deterring crime. Several researchers have tried to ascertain the

effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime and the first research indicates a

relatively strong effectiveness of CCTV. The latest research (Waples, Gill & Fisher,

2009), however, show that CCTV with an effectiveness of about 4% is not nearly as

effective in preventing crime as previously thought. More recent research has shown

flaws in previous research and possible negative side effects of CCTV, such as

displacement.

The benefits for investigations and sentencing criminals with the use of footage from

CCTV have also been overestimated, as shown by several announcements from the

Metropolitan Police (Metropolitan Police, 2010; Metropolitan Police, 2011). Even

though one might expect these negative results to suppress the strong support for

CCTV this has not happened as the public largely does not seem to know these

figures. Politicians and other supporters, including several researchers, are now

pointing towards other positive effects CCTV could have. These other positive

effects include the use of CCTV to create a more efficient use of the police force and

the increased perception of safety (Bowcott, 2008). As one might imagine, these

effects are difficult to research, but if they are the two main reasons for spending this

large amount of money there should be some research into whether these effects are

even accomplished by the use of CCTV. To research the more efficient use of the

police force information should be obtained from within the police. Even with such

information it is hard to conclude anything relevant as one of the main factors for this

use is that many CCTV systems should be connected to each other which are just

now starting to be connected to each other. For the perception of safety, however, the

information from within the police force is not necessary.

Of course, some research has been carried out into the perception of safety. This

research, however, has some possible flaws as it is mostly used before and after


20/65

19

methods where the results could be affected by secondary factors such as

displacement (Waples, Gill & Fisher, 2009). The attitude might also differ because of

current news stories and a higher or lower crime rate. These factors have led to a gap

in knowledge were it is still uncertain to what extent CCTV has an effect on the

perception of safety. Also, there has not been much research into the causes of

support by the public and whether CCTV has the same effect on the perception of all

types of people or whether there is a difference to be found. As CCTV takes in a lot

of the governmental budget and is implemented strongly within the anti-crime

policies it is important that the current understanding of these effects is tested to

ensure that more reliable information is available for future choices which have to be

made when deciding on how to continue these policies. As shown, it is important that

some conclusive answers are found on the question of what the effects of CCTV are

on the perception of safety as well as who is being influenced by CCTV, and why.

Possible outcomes new research

There are several different outcomes possible for the questions mentioned before as

the outcomes are relatively easy to support with current knowledge. The first and

most likely outcome for instance would be that it is positive.

The perception of safety is, and has been, one of the major arguments for the

placement of CCTV. With thepublics high trust in the effectiveness of CCTV the

idea that CCTV would increase the perception of safety is not very strange. It is well

known that natural surveillance in the form of many people being around or being

visible increases the perception of safety. This is also the case for the more

organisational forms of surveillance, and the contribution of visible police officers in

the area have a positive effect too. These types of surveillance have been researched

multiple times with positive results. Ditton (2000), and the public themselves,

however, have shown that trust is greater if an actual police officer is present rather

than the presence of a camera. Koskela (2002) in turn shows that women have

different and more negative attitudes towards the perception of crime and CCTV

than men do. Nonetheless several researchers have suggested that the results of

CCTV on the perception of crime are generally positive (Welsh & Farrington, 2006).


21/65

20

Even though current opinions and research point towards a positive effect on the

perception of crime there are some other points to notice (Zurawski & Czerwinski,

2008). In some of the research done it would be clear to the participants that it

involves the testing of CCTV. With the largely positive attitude towards CCTV by

the public this knowledge concerning the topic might have influenced the results.

What is even more interesting is that, when asked, many people are not certain

whether or not they are being watched even when cameras are quite visible. This

would suggest that many people do not notice them anymore, that they see them as

regular street furniture. When people are not aware of being watched, or possibly

when they are being watched by cameras, CCTV would probably not affect the

perception of safety whatsoever. Therefore the possible effect could be neutral.

Although the positive and the neutral effects both seem viable the possibility of a

negative effect should not be completely disregarded. One of the effects of visual

CCTV, which is mentioned regularly by researchers, is that it might cause people to

become more security-conscious. This would suggest that CCTV actually makes

people more aware of the possibility of becoming a victim of crime and therefore is

likely to negatively influence the perception of safety. This conclusion comes very

close to the fundamental thoughts of the broken windows theory. In this theory it is

suggested that visible results of crime are contributing to new criminal behaviour.

Others who see this evidence of crime are also affected in that they would perceive

the area which has evidence of crime as more dangerous and think they might have a

higher possibility of becoming a victim of crime. If people would think of CCTV as

a sign of previous crimes or as a reminder that they might become a victim of crime

it might very well be that people noticing CCTV feel less safe than when the CCTV

is not there at all. As CCTV might have a large effect on people as it is used so much

in the UK and the effect on the perception of safety is still uncertain it is necessary

that the effect is researched and tested as to the possible outcomes.


22/65

21

Methodology:

Introduction

The following chapter discusses the methodology used for this research. It is divided

in several sections, starting with the research problem, and continuing to discuss the

research questions, the purpose and aims of this research and the hypothesis. After

this the actual approach used to answer the research questions is described. The

analysis of the results is discussed in detail as this is one of the most important parts

of the research. For the description of the analysis the researcher has chosen to use

the same structure as used in the other chapters. This structure includes the headings

seen before in the literary review: the effect of CCTV, demographics, victimisation

and support and the demographics, support and victimisation. The ethics arediscussed immediately after so that any possible ethical problems related to the

research methodology are dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Research problem:

As there is a large sum of money connected to the use of CCTV, and research until

now has not given a conclusive answer which could justify these expenditures, it is

important that some of the main arguments for and against CCTV are researched. Asthe research into the actual effects of CCTV on crime is very complex, time-

consuming and expensive this research will be concentrating on one of the secondary

effects of CCTV which is often mentioned as a benefit of CCTV. This effect is the

influence of CCTV on the perception of safety for the public. As mentioned in the

previous chapter there has been some research in this area. These, however, have

some problems in covering the entire benefits or downsides of CCTV on the

perception of safety. Research has been carried out into the effects on people in their

own residential areas but there is no research focusing on the effects of CCTV for

people unfamiliar with the area. Other research has been done concerning in-depth

interviews, and therefore the ideas people have about CCTV and the effect of CCTV

on the perception of safety remain unmeasured.

As these pieces of research focused on particular groups of people, such as residents,

homeless people and women, there is no research into the effects on others who do

not regularly come into certain neighbourhoods or areas. Another problem arises


23/65

22

from the methodologies used in previous research: they were held in a form which

easily reveals what the research is concerned with. This rules out the possibility of

discovering feelings towards CCTV that the participants are not consciously aware

of. As shown in the literary review the main reasons for being positive lie in rational

thinking, while negative and neutral feedback is to be found in the unconscious

evaluation of the areas which have CCTV in them. Therefore the main problem this

research is going to address is the lack of a conclusive answer as to whether or not

CCTV makes the general public feel safer. At the same time it seeks to answer

questions to find what it is that causes people to feel safer or less safe because of

CCTV. The additional questions into the differences of the effect CCTV has on the

perception of safety are supposed to give an indication as to whether or not certain

aspects affect the perception of CCTV.

Identifying the problem

As the previous chapters show there is a lot of research into the effect of CCTV.

Unfortunately the research into the effects of CCTV brings some difficulties which

might lead to wrong conclusions. This has caused some research to be contradictory,

and therefore a great amount of research might have led to even more confusion.

Some researchers have therefore connected several pieces of research together and

have drawn their conclusions from the combined results. One can now conclude that

the use of CCTV is not as effective in deterring crime and catching criminals as

previously thought.

As the actual effectiveness of CCTV is now regularly questioned the supporters of

more CCTV look towards other effects. The possibilities CCTV brings to

coordinating the police and the increased perception of safety are often mentioned.

The use of coordinating the police force by the use of CCTV would be a relatively

strong one if most of the cameras would be available and used for this purpose. This

is, however, not the case as just a small amount of the cameras in the UK are owned

by the government. As mentioned by several researchers, these are currently not

connected and monitored enough to provide an efficient use (Webster, 2009). The

increase in the perception of safety might, however, be a very valid argument and

most of the research shows that the installation of CCTV normally has a positive


24/65

23

effect. There is, however, a problem: some questions could be raised about the

methodology and the outcomes of these pieces of research.

The research done into the effects of CCTV on the perception of safety can be

divided into two separate groups. One consists of qualitative research mostly

interested in a particular group. Examples of these are Koskela (2002), who

researched the effect of CCTV on women, Doherty et al., (2007) and Zedner (2003),

who looked into the effects on homeless people, and Klauser (2007) who partly

focussed on prostitutes. As these pieces of research investigate only the results of a

small group of people and mostly do not consider the underlying effects of CCTV for

example the possibility of a broken windows effect the resulting information is not

sufficient to conclude whether the perception of safety of the general public is

positively or negatively influenced by CCTV.

The second type of research is quantitative and is based on surveys which were held

before and after the installation of big CCTV schemes, for example Gill & Spriggs

(2005). There are several problems with this type of research. First of all, in some of

the research, the perception of safety increased by more or by the same amount as in

the control area. Another problem is that it often focuses on people familiar with the

area. When one does questionnaires for residents from a certain area where CCTV is

installed one excludes the opinions of people who do not regularly go to the area. It

is also a problem that the actual effects of CCTV, such as a decrease in crime in that

area or a decrease of unwanted behaviours such as littering, causes people to feel

safer. Another problem is that most of the people interviewed know that the

questionnaire concerns the evaluation of CCTV, and since there is strong support for

CCTV by the public (see literature) it might have caused several people to respond

more positively.

Research questions

- Does CCTV have an effect on the perception of crime?- If so, to what extent?- Is the use of the argument for CCTV on the perception of crime valid?


25/65

24

- Does CCTV have effects on the perception of safety that people areunaware of?

- Do demographic aspects, such as gender, race or nationality, make adifference to the effect of CCTV on the perception of crime?

- How does CCTV affect the perception of safety for people who supportCCTV?

- How does CCTV affect the perception of safety for people who have beenvictims of crime?

- To what extent do the results differ from or correlate with previousresearch?

Purpose of the research

This research seeks to answer some questions concerning the effect CCTV has on the

perception of safety. It tests whether the conclusions from previous research in this

subject are correct or should be adjusted. More precisely, its main purpose is to see

how CCTV affects the perception of safety for people who are unfamiliar with the

particular area. Other research into the relationship between CCTV and the

perception of safety are often based before and after CCTV installation results. As

these pieces of research generally focus on people familiar with the testing area their

perceptions might differ significantly. At the same time this research will also test a

statement made by Koskela (2002), which argues that CCTV has a different effect on

women since they tend to mistrust CCTV more often.

The information derived from this research should ultimately contribute to the

understanding of the effects of CCTV and stimulate towards a more evidence-based

discussion. As the political discussion about the usefulness of CCTV has, until now,

mostly been based on misconceptions about the effectiveness and positive results of

CCTV this research seeks to give a conclusive answer to one of the most commonly

used arguments for the use of CCTV. This argument is that it increases the feelings

of safety for the public. As other research is showing that the anticipated positive

results are not being achieved by the use of CCTV alone, the use of the argument that

it increases the feelings of safety is being used more and more often.


26/65

25

Since the argument of the feelings of safety is still being used it seems that the

placement of more cameras, and possibly making them relatively visible, is very

likely. If the effects of CCTV on the perception of safety are neutral or negative this

could lead to a waste of money and possibly even have a negative effect on the

perception of safety.

Hypothesis

The outcomes from this research are hard to predict as there are several possibilities

which could be explained easily by the use of theory or earlier research in the

subject. The possibility of a positive effect could be explained by previous research

in the perception of safety which shows that people feel safer when there are more

people around. CCTV cameras, if noticed, could be seen as surveillance by others.

The complete opposite of the positive effect, which is often mentioned by supporters

of CCTV, is, however, far from excluded as a possibility. In this research the

hypothesis will be that CCTV has a neutral to negative effect on the perception of

safety. The negative results would be caused by an effect related to the broken

windows theory (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Seeing CCTV reminds people of the

possibility of becoming a victim, and this has also been mentioned as one of the

positive results of the use of CCTV. At the same time CCTV would be connected

with high crime areas or the more risky areas, as CCTV is placed in many places

were the crime levels are high in an attempt to deter crime. This leads to CCTV

being most visible in places that are associated with crime. As CCTV has existed for

quite a long period now it would not be unlikely that the association people have

with CCTV is strongly connected with a higher risk of becoming a victim of crime.

If this is the case then it would inevitably lead to a higher perception of crime if

confronted with relatively visible CCTV cameras.

Research Methodology:

In order to find out whether or not CCTV has a negative influence on people there

are certain aspects to be aware of. The main one for this research is that people

should not be aware of the research concerns into CCTV as this opens the

opportunity for rational thinking and could influence an interviewees assessment of

their own perception of safety. They would normally not do this when walking in an


27/65

26

area with CCTV. It is how CCTV affects the complete situation they are in that this

research tries to find. To achieve reliable results, however, it is important that the

results are drawn from a situation where it is clear that there is one situation with

CCTV and one without which are as similar as possible. Considering the amount of

time allotted, as well as financial limitations, this research will use an internet-based

questionnaire. This internet-based questionnaire will use 10 pictures, and the

participants are asked the following question:Looking at the picture above, how

would you rate your chances of becoming a victim of crime in this place?

This question has been formulated in such a way that it asks the participant about

how he or she would rate the chances for him- or herself, making sure that they do

not answer with the average individual in mind or about the safety of the area in

general. This is important for the results since this research tries to find out how it

influences the perception of safety for and from individuals and not how people feel

it could be dangerous for others.

The possible answers to rate the pictures are from very low to very high, using a

scale of 1 to 5.

As explained before it is important that there cannot be an argument as to whether or

not the results are affected by variables other than the cameras. Therefore, the

researcher has chosen to create two groups of participants and allow each group to

assess different pictures. Both groups need to assess the same ten pictures, with the

only difference being that five pictures for the first group will have a CCTV camera

in them and the same five pictures for the other group will not have a camera in

them. For the other five pictures the second group will have CCTV in them and for

the first group the same pictures will not have CCTV. This way one can ensure that

the difference in attitude towards CCTV between the tested groups is not going to

make the test less reliable and the differences will be reliable measures for the effect

of CCTV on the perception of safety. As each group gets five pictures with and five

pictures without CCTV in them there are still many factors within the pictures which

could substantially affect the score. As this is one of the main causes of possible

mistakes in other research there was a need to make sure the pictures with CCTV

from one group should be as much alike the pictures without CCTV as possible. To

do so there were two possibilities: either to take pictures before the placement of

CCTV and then after, or to use a computer program to edit the CCTV out of the


28/65

27

picture. The second option was chosen for two reasons: the main one is that it saves

time and money, of which there was not that much available for this research; the

second one is that the installation of CCTV might take time which would affect other

factors in the picture such as the amount of light; it would also be difficult to take

exactly the same photograph again. By modifying the picture on the computer,

however, there was only the need for ten pictures with or without CCTV, so that the

edited version would be exactly the same with the exception of the CCTV cameras.

A possible problem with this approach is the quality of the modified pictures. If it is

visible to the participants that something has been edited in the picture it could

possibly influence the results. To avoid this problem the researcher asked several

people to look at the edited pictures closely and ask them if they saw anything

unusual, or something which seemed to be wrong with the picture. The responses

varied but none noticed that the pictures were edited which led to the conclusion that

the pictures were edited appropriately. A different problem with the pictures could be

the visibility of the CCTV in the pictures used. In a random picture of a British street

with CCTV the CCTV would most likely not be noticeable enough and therefore

probably would not give any results. The pictures used were therefore selected by the

researcher and discussed with the supervisor of this project to ensure that the CCTV

would be noticeable enough but also not too obvious. The ten pictures needed for

this research could also be found or made in several ways. The most straightforward

way would have been just taking a camera and taking pictures around the city. This,

however, had the downside that the questionnaire would be sent to University of

Leicester students who might recognise the places photographed. Travelling to

multiple random places in the UK to take the pictures would be costly and time-

consuming, and it might also be a problem taking multiple photographs of CCTV

since this might seem suspicious to many people (Metropolitan Police, 2008).

Therefore the choice was made to collect the pictures from the internet.

The participants were recruited from the University of Leicester, as the questionnaire

is internet-based and the mailing lists for students are relatively easy to be used for

sending questionnaires. The preference for sending out the survey was to let the IT

services send the two versions with different photos randomly across to students

from several departments. As this turned out to be impossible the questionnaire was

sent to several departments within the university (the School of Management and the


29/65

28

Department of Criminology) and the questionnaire itself has been adjusted and

merged together with the goal of randomly distributing the participants over both

versions of the photos. The adjustment existed of one added question: which of the

two six-month periods was the participant was born in. Depending on the answer of

the participant the photos connected to this period and the participant group would be

shown ensuring that each group of photos would receive approximately 50% of the

participants and that the participants would be selected as randomly as possible.

Besides the questions where participants need to assess pictures, there are some

questions in the beginning of the questionnaire asking for background information.

These questions are formulated as follows:

- What is your gender?- What is your age group?- Are you living alone or with others?- What is your nationality?- What is your race?- Are you a University of Leicester student?

These questions serve the purpose of creating the ability to see whether there are

factors which influence the results or the attitude towards CCTV. The variable age

will be used to see whether the age of the participants has an effect on the perception

of safety CCTV has. Several researches have shown that the perception of safety by

younger people tends to be better than that of other age groups; therefore, it would be

interesting to see if there would be a difference between the age groups. The question

as to whether the participants live alone or with others is based on the same

suggestion that people who live alone have different feelings of safety than people

who live with others. Another variable asked for is gender as other research

(Koskela, 2002) suggests that women tend to mistrust CCTV more often than men.

By including a question about gender it will be relatively easy to see if this

suggestion is correct. The question asking for the race of the participant is based on

the suggestion that CCTV might be used in a discriminating way, possibly causing

certain groups to have a different attitude towards CCTV. The reason why the

nationality has been added to the question list is from a somewhat different

perspective. Since CCTV is used more in the UK than anywhere else in the world it


30/65

29

will be interesting if the results of people from the UK differ to the responses of

people who are living somewhere else. With the results of these questions compared

one might be able to see whether people from the UK are becoming used to the idea

of CCTV being around, and CCTV therefore having a lower effect. These questions

are immediately followed by the questions with the ten pictures.

After the questions with the pictures have been rated by the participants there is no

more reason why the participants should not be aware of the focus of this research,

and other questions concerning CCTV will be asked. For the questions concerning

whether or not the participant supports CCTV some caution has to be taken when

formulating the questions. Ditton (1998) has shown that if the question is formulated

negatively or positively it will influence the results significantly. These questions

ask the participant about their opinion concerning CCTV and more specifically

whether they support the installation of more CCTV. It also asks if they have been a

victim or know someone who has been a victim of crime in the last 12 months,

whether they avoid particular areas and if CCTV in these areas would make them

feel safer. The questions are formulated as follows:

- Have you been a victim of crime in the last 12 months?- Do you know someone who has been a victim of crime in the last 12

months?

- Do you think CCTV helps to reduce street crime?- Do you support the installation of more CCTV in public areas?- Are there particular areas you avoid because you are concerned about

becoming a victim of crime in that area?

- If CCTV were to be installed in these areas would you feel safer?Again, these groups are compared with the results of the pictures and there are

several conclusions which are important. The questions about victims of crime are

the more interesting since there might be several possibilities why they would assess

the pictures with cameras higher or lower in terms of their perception of safety. As

explained in the literary review, they might respond more negatively since the

security measures did not stop the crime from happening last time. It could, however,

also be the case that becoming a victim has made them more conscious of their

security, because of which they prefer to stay in areas with more security measures.


31/65

30

It will also be very interesting to see whether the participants who support the

installation of more CCTV, think that CCTV helps to reduce street crime and the

group who says they would feel safer if more CCTV were to be installed do respond

more positively to the pictures with CCTV. If they do not respond more positively

than the other group this could indicate that they themselves are unaware of what

effect CCTV actually has on themselves. This would be a clear indication that

normal interviews or questionnaires in which the participant is aware of the topic

under discussion are probably not credible.

A potential problem for this research would also be the website where the

questionnaire is hosted. There are many websites which offer students free use of

their services in a limited manner. This research requires various options such as the

use of photographs and the piping of questions. The piping of questions is when the

answer of a particular question in the questionnaire sends the participant to a certain

page. This was needed to separate the participants by using the question relating to

which period they were born in, so that it could be decided which pictures the

participant should see.

Analysing the results:

Effect of CCTV

If the minimum number of 200 questionnaires has been completed this research can

continue and the analysis of results can begin. The first step to take consists of

exporting the results from the website to the analysing program. Fortunately, the

website supports direct exports to the program used. While transporting the results

an error on the website caused the results to not be shown in the analysing program.

After contacting the websites help services the problem was fixed very soon and the

export was fast and easy. Once the results were exported into the analysing software

some changes had to be made to the file. First, of a lot of unimportant variables were

exported which the questionnaire automatically collected; these were deleted to

create a better overview and make working with the analysing software easier. After

this had been done the results of the photographs could be cleaned out. Since there

were two separate groups of pictures there were 20 variables, and each picture had its


32/65

31

own variable, including the edited versions. Since the groupings were already

separating whether people assessed the picture with CCTV or without CCTV the

edited pictures and unedited pictures were placed under the same variables deleting

the ten empty variables after. The first photograph variables were now ready to work

with and the individual photographs would be tested using an independent T test

using the when were you born question to create group one and two with the

individual pictures as the variable which is tested.

In order to find whether or not one could conclude what effect CCTV has and see if

there is a significant difference for all the pictures combined there are some extra

steps to be taken. To create one figure for all the CCTV pictures per participant one

could use the average of all the photographs assessed. This however would not work

with the results of this particular questionnaire; since both groups have assessed five

pictures with and without CCTV the resulting averages would be useless. Therefore a

different approach was necessary and the results and grouping factor when were you

born were exported to Microsoft Excel. Within Excel the scores of each participant,

and their assessment of the pictures with and without CCTV, were separately

counted and averaged creating two extra variables in the Excel table. The first

variable is the average each participant assessed on the five pictures with the CCTV

camera. The second variable consists of the average score the participant gave to the

five pictures without CCTV. To create a variable one can work with in the analysing

software and find the results this research is interested in another step has to be

taken. The two variables per participant which are left should be merged into one

variable and the difference between the two groups should be that the difference

between CCTV and No CCTV should be found. Therefore the two variables showing

the average score for the pictures with and without CCTV are deducted from one

another. For group one , the group who answered that they were born between

January and June, the average with CCTV is deducted from the average without

CCTV; for group two the opposite was done since the pictures with CCTV in group

one did not have CCTV for group two and the pictures without CCTV for group one

did have CCTV for group two. Now that this is finished group one and group two

have the average score from the same five pictures. The resulting variable three is

now ready to be used in analysing software and an independent T-test can be

performed with the when were you born question being the grouping variable. The


33/65

32

result of performing this test tells whether CCTV has a positive or negative effect on

the perception of safety and whether the results are statistically significant.

DemographicsThe questionnaire asked for several demographical details from the participant

including age group, gender, race and nationality. To analyse whether there is a

significant difference between certain groups the variable has to be adjusted, as

variable 3 from the previous section specifically searched for the differences between

the two groups with and without CCTV. Now the question which needs to be solved

is whether the demographics influenced a different result between CCTV and no

CCTV for the entire group. Therefore variable 3, of which the first group has the

pictures without CCTV deducted from the ones with CCTV and the second group the

other way around doesnt work. This because comparing this variable with any other

grouping factor than the one when were you born the effects of the CCTV of the

two groups will be opposite and cancel each other out. Therefore a new variable 4

has to be made. Fairly simply, using variables 1 and 2 again, which are the averages

for the pictures with and without CCTV per participant. This time variable 2 the

average of the score without CCTV deducted from variable 1 which is the average

for the pictures with CCTV. This leaves a result which, if positive, would be a

positive effect for CCTV, and if negative would indicate a negative effect for CCTV.

Variable 4 is now ready to work with and the demographical data will be analysed

with the new variable 4. Again the independent T-test will be used and the variables

of gender, living alone or with others, race and nationality.

Victims of crime and support for CCTV

At the stage, when the researcher is beginning to analyse the last questions in relation

to the effects of CCTV and the perception of crime, as well as the demographical

data, there will already be a few conclusions and analysed variables. One of the new

calculated variables, variable 4, will be used again to find differences between the

effect on the perception of safety and the answers concerning victims of crime and

support for CCTV. First the questions concerning whether or not the participant has

been a victim of crime, or knows a victim of a crime which happened in the last

twelve months, will be placed in an independent T-test together with variable 4 as the


34/65

33

dependant variable. These will be followed by an independent T-test with the other

variables whether they support CCTV, think CCTV works, and feel safer because of

CCTV and whether they avoid particular places because they think they might

become a victim of crime. Again the dependent variable will be variable 4. The

resulting figures will then show if there is a connection between the support and/or

victims of crime of participants which influences their perception of CCTV and

crime.

Demographics, Support and Victimisation

In order to answer the questions concerning whether or not being a victim of crime

would influence the perspectives participants have on the effects and support of

CCTV a different test has to be used since a parametric test is not possible for these

calculations. In this case the Chi-Square test is used and the support for CCTV has

been tested against the victims of crime of the participant or whether they know a

victim of crime and also the demographical data variables of race, gender and

nationality. The same variables are again used to see whether the variable CCTV

gives the same results as the variable of whether they support CCTV.

Ethics:

As part of the University of Leicester, Department of Criminology guidelines this

research has been submitted for ethical approval and approved. For this application

several factors have been mentioned by the researcher which will be applied during

research to avoid unethical conditions. One of the main problems is how to collect

suitable pictures of CCTV without breaking the law or creating a disturbance of any

kind (Metropolitan Police, 2008). This problem is resolved by using pictures from

the internet.

Another problem could be the distribution of the survey. As the questionnaire is

focusing on University of Leicester students and the researcher has received several

emails which were connected to mailing lists in which the otherparticipants email

addresses were visible it would be possible to send the questionnaire out to several

groups directly. The questionnaire will, however, not be sent this way since it will


35/65

34

not have been permitted by the appropriate people and it could also lead to some

irritation if several people are to be sent the same questionnaire multiple times.

Besides this, it is unlikely that the preferred amount of 200 participants will be

reached. Therefore this questionnaire has, as described before, been sent with

approval from the departments to which the students belong.

The document sent for ethical approval also includes a consent form that is to be a

part of the questionnaire to ensure that the participant knows his or her rights and that

they can withdraw at any moment during the questionnaire, and also that the

researchers will delete any information which could be used to identify the

participant. As a side note to the ethical approval given by the Department of

Criminology it is required that the research follows the Research Ethics Code of

Practice (2011). The points in this Code of Practice discuss things concerning

anonymity and consent by the participant. Since these points are already taken into

account or are simply not applicable to this particular research no extra measures

need to be taken.


36/65

35

Analysis

As the research methodology has been discussed now the results from the

questionnaire will be given and analysed. This chapter will largely follow the same

structure as the other chapters. However, at first the participant group will be

examined and any particular interest points will be discussed. The part following

after will show the effects CCTV has on the entire participant group. The third

section then shows the results of the tests looking into the effects of the

demographical groups and the effect CCTV has on their perception of crime. The

fourth part then shows the resulting relationship between victims of crime and the

support of CCTV with the effect CCTV has on their perception of crime. The final

section to be analysed is the relationship between demographics, support for CCTV

and victims of crime. The data which has been given and explained in this chapter,

together with the literary review, form the supporting information used in the

discussion and conclusion which follow after this chapter.


37/65

36

As said above, the demographics of the participant group are being analysed first.

Table 1 gives an overview of how the participant group looks. It shows their gender,

age group, nationality, race and the variable of when the participants were born,

which was used as the grouping variable to create two equal groups. The results are

shown as the exact number of respondents as well as a percentage of the amount of

participants that answered per possible result.


38/65

37

Table 1: Demographics of the participant group

Reponses Percentage (%)

Gender:Male 300 60%

Female 200 40%

Total: 500 100%

Age group:

18-24 40 8%

25-29 75 15%

30 or older 385 77%Total: 500 100%

Born in period between:

January-June 236 47.2%

July-December 264 52.8%

Total: 500 100%

Nationality:

British 128 25.6%

Other 372 74.4%

Total: 500 100%

Race:

Asian 95 19%

Black 124 24.8%

White 242 48.4%

Other/multi-racial 29 5.8%

Decline to respond 10 2%

Total: 500 100%

As discussed in the introduction of this chapter the first results of the questionnaire to

be discussed are the demographics of the target group. These demographics are

shown above, in Table 1. The first thing one might notice is that the amount of

respondents largely exceeds the amount of participants, as the initial minimum goal

of this research

cctv and its effect on the perception of safety

Documents