Chris Tomlinson

Arup Resilience, Security and Risk

October 2011

CPTED – An Introduction and its role in Built Environment Security

Agenda

Definition & Intent

Theoretical Background

Concepts and Language

Good and Bad Practice

Examples

Realities and Criticism of the Approach

Futures and Compatibility

Sources

CPTED Definition

“The proper design and effective use of the built environment that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life.

The goal of CPTED is to reduce opportunities for crime that may be inherent in the design of structures or in the design of neighbourhoods.”

Crowe 2001

CPTED Intent

The theory of CPTED is based on a simple idea i.e. that crime results partly from the opportunities presented by physical environment.

CPTED is the design or re-design of an environment to reduce crime opportunity and fear of crime through natural, mechanical, and procedural means.

CPTED is best applied with a multi-disciplinary approach that engages planners, designers, architects, landscapers, law enforcement and (ideally) residents/space users.

The Focus is Conventional Crime

CrimeViolence against the personTheft/robberyBurglaryFraudVandalism

Civil DisorderAnti-capitalistSingle issueFixated individualsAnti-brand

NuisanceBeggingRough sleepersSubstance abuseFly posters

Although CPTED techniques do assist in anti-terrorism, but to what degree is hard to measure

Using Realistic Risk-driven Design

Theoretical Background It was first coined as a term by the US criminologist, C. Ray Jeffery in 1971 -

arguing that sociologists had overstated the social causes of crime e.g.: deprivation and other sub-cultural influences; and had neglected biological’ and environmental determinants; other influences include:

- Defensible Space, promoted by the US architect Oscar Newman; a famous critique of American public housing at about the same time as Jeffery’s book. Newman put much of the blame for the high crime rates in public housing “projects” on their lay-out and design. Also influenced by Jane Jacobs and her belief in diversity of street use

- Situational crime prevention, developed by the UK government’s criminological research department in the mid-1970 to 80. Unlike CPTED, and “defensible space”, this approach is not concerned principally with architectural design and the built environment

- Environmental Criminology ‘Broken windows’ theories on decay driving crime and nuisance

Most of the academic research into the relationship between crime and environmental opportunities has been conducted under the rubric of situational crime prevention.

Situational Crime Prevention

But CPTED is not operationlised “situational crime prevention”, which is:

- Target Hardening - reducing criminal opportunities by making the situation or property less vulnerable (car steering locks)

- Target Removal - using cheques instead of cash - Removing the means to commit crime - gun law control- Reducing Pay Off - marking goods- Formal Surveillance - police patrols- Natural Surveillance - building houses to overlook one another- Surveillance by Employers - managers in public housing- Environmental Management - good liaison between football clubs and

police in preventing fan violence.

However, there are design crossovers e.g. Target Hardening, Natural Surveillance and Environmental Management.

Criminal Opportunity

Location, including capable guardianship

Vulnerable Target Motivated offender

“Individual criminal events must be understood as confluences of offenders, victims or criminal targets and laws in a specific settings at particular times and places“. Brantingham and Brantingham, Environmental Criminology (1981)

The Nature of Crime Targets - CRAVED goods

Based on Ron Clarke’s concept of ‘Hot Products’ – those at heightened risk of theft by virtue of being ‘CRAVED’ i.e. having one or more of the following properties:

- Concealable

- Removable

- Available

- Valuable

- Enjoyable

- Disposable

Some Realities on Offending Behaviours CPTED measures (many rely on psychological cues) may not be

that obvious to potential offenders e.g.:- Derelicts- Buccaneers – attention seekers- Situation exploiters – mass and event- Alternate cultures – graffiti artists, skate boarders, PK Traceurs etc

CPTED is undermined by post-offence inaction

Must be risk-based i.e. CPTED applied without a full understanding of the micro, meso and macro-crime patterns is pointless – well at least the micro-crime patterns

Displacement in space, time and target

Fear of crime and recitations of pre-conceived ideas i.e. too much emphasis on ‘broken windows’ as a signal of societal failure

CPTED Principles

Territoriality

Natural Surveillance

Access Control

Target Hardening

Image Maintenance

Activity Support

Good Practice

Planning obligations – e.g. Crime prevention and the assessment of development applications under section 79C of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Architect engagement – the US has reached out to AIA and in the UK police ALO/CPDAs are engaging RIBA audiences

International CPTED Association – US/Canada/Australian/NZ

Designing out Crime Association – UK

Europe – EU programme maturing, but has not researched success

Bad Practice

Overstating CPTED Effectiveness – e.g. CCTV or lighting effectiveness often overplayed

Unhelpful affiliation with design – making the CPTED fit the design and genuinely independent advice could conflict with commercial interests (commoditisation of security advice)

‘Boilerplate’ not always transferrable – ‘Cookbook solutions’

Lack of follow-on assessment of design measure effectiveness – operability and tuning

Failure not admitted to – CPTED failure and context should be recorded it will develop knowledge

Territoriality

Territoriality Explained

Unambiguously define edges between the various types of spaces and uses

Create clarity of purpose and use

Prevent flow-through circulation routes that connect outside (public) spaces

Not be ‘shy’ about making some edges physically impenetrable

Keep the public in public types of spaces and out of the private ones

Lay claim to semi-public spaces by encouraging residents to use them.

Natural Surveillance

Access Control

Target Hardening

Image Maintenance

Activity Support

Think Offender and Nuisance in the Space

Does CPTED Work? Cozens found it to be a qualified yes

- CPTED components of surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, activity support, image/ management, target hardening all individually contribute to reducing crime & fear in broad range of studies

- CPTED shown to reduce crime and the fear of crime in numerous evaluations and to increase property values and investment in the area

However: - Support for the effectiveness of comprehensive CPTED projects has not

been unequivocally demonstrated - Uncertain precisely how CPTED and its component parts work, where it

works best and how to systematically evaluate its effectiveness (or otherwise) beyond reasonable doubt

- Rigorous testing and evaluation procedure to produce deeper understanding of theoretical basis of CPTED mechanisms

- Uncertain precisely how CPTED and its component parts work, where it works best and how to systematically evaluate its genuine effectiveness

CPTED and Problems It is prone to fashion and drift of meaning, and meaning

different things to different agencies or disciplines

It is ‘in a disciplinary No Man’s Land’:- It is isolated empirically and theoretically from rest of crime prevention,

even situational prevention- Lack of criminological rigour/clarity - Basic concepts need further investigation (e.g. the effects of territoriality

may not be universal- The theory has not been integrated – the four strands (Defensible Space,

CPTED, Situational Crime Prevention, Environmental Criminology) are simply placed side-by-side, requiring the user to fit them all together. This is inappropriate complexity masquerading as simplicity

- Evidence base needs developing on detailed risks of crime addressed by CPTED, causes/ consequences/ interventions

Alternative Practices

Accommodating behaviours that might be acceptable

More space-user CPTED tuning

Landscape manipulations

Second generation CPTED

Think Design-based Solutions

Promote acceptable behaviours and space use

Test solution even as a desk-top multi-disciplinary exercise

Think sustainability, maintainability and aesthetics

Think Fear of Crime“Gradually fear extends its domain in the city, with a preference for open spaces. Rarely does it retreat from conquered ground, and in exchange it takes new ones to add to its domains. It is we who retreat, we who give way, we abandon a space which is left at the mercy of fear. Sometimes we resist, we fight back, we suffer the anxiety rather than lose a space that is ours, though in the end we will give the position up, we will not set foot in that part of the park again after dark, we will avoid those neighbourhoods, we will not walk so carelessly in outlying areas, we will take a taxi instead of the underground after a certain hour”.

Isaac Rosa (2008). El país del miedo

28

The Arup Approach

Architects Client/users Developers

Early Engagement (risk-led) by Security Consultants

29

We Should use CPTED to: Reduce the probability of crime and nuisance, whilst enhancing

the quality of life through community safety

Use opportunities in planning and design of the built-environment on a range of scales and types of place from individual buildings and interiors to wider landscapes, neighbourhoods & cities

Produce designs that are 'fit for purpose‘, and contextually appropriate in all other respects

Whilst achieving a balance between: the efficiency of avoiding crime problems before construction and the adaptability of tackling them through subsequent

management and maintenance

To compliment our sustainable approach to projects.

Sources – not an exhaustive list

Academic – Clarke, Cozens, Ekblom, Jeffery etc- Theoretical Background to CPTED and Situational Prevention, Ronald V

Clarke, 1989- Crime prevention through environmental design: a review and modern

bibliography Paul M Cozens, 2005.

Government:- US – State CPTED networks- Canada – Province CPTED networks- Australia – State and territory guidance (Victoria, NSW and Western

Australia)- EU – European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN)- UK – The ACPO Secured by Design scheme

Associations and Conference proceedings – These need to be looked at or listened to only by the hardiest, as often there is critique that may be hard to put in context

Chris Tomlinson

chris.tomlinson@arup.com

Any Questions?