University of Huddersfield Repository

Armitage, Rachel

Design, crime and the built environment

Original Citation

Armitage, Rachel (2017) Design, crime and the built environment. In: Handbook of Crime
Prevention and Community Safety (2nd Edition). Routledge, pp. 234-253. ISBN 9781138851054

This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/26946/

The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the

University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items
on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.
Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally
can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any
format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:

• The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;
• A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and
• The content is not changed in any way.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: [email protected].

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/
Design, Crime and the Built Environment
Professor Rachel Armitage

Abstract
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a method of reducing
crime through the design and manipulation of the built environment. Based upon the
Opportunity Theories of crime, CPTED focuses upon blocking opportunities for
criminal behaviour through subtle techniques to maximise informal surveillance,
guardianship and maintenance, to minimise through movement and to set standards of
physical security that are proportionate to crime risk. This chapter will discuss the
principles of CPTED and the theories from which it evolved. It will explore the
effectiveness of these principles, both individually and combined, in reducing crime,
before exploring how CPTED is applied in practice.

Introduction
Crime takes many forms and occurs in many places, and whilst theories of crime
causation are often generalised across different crime types, there is little empirical
evidence to suggest that the prevention of child sexual exploitation, homicide or
human trafficking (to give extreme examples) could be prevented using the measures
outlined within this chapter. The focus here is largely upon the prevention or
reduction of acquisitive crimes such is burglary in a dwelling, theft of and from
vehicles and associated offences. By the nature of the targets of these offences, the
focus is on residential housing and the areas surrounding those properties – the wider
housing estate.

The risk of becoming a victim of crime varies dramatically, based on a person’s age,
gender, socio-economic and marital status to name just a few. Whilst the average risk
of becoming a victim of crime in England and Wales in 2014-2015 was 15.9% (ONS,
2015) for all adults, this increased to 22.1% for those aged 16-24, to 27.9% for
mixed/multiple race adults, to 20% for single adults, to 22.7% for the unemployed
and to 20.1% for private renters. Alternatively, those aged 75 and over have a risk of
just 5.9%, white adults 15.7%, employed 18%, and for those who own their own
home the risk is 14.1%. Whilst awareness of these enhanced risks can help to tailor
interventions, to alert individuals and even to allocate crime reduction resources, to
state the obvious, it is beyond the control of any agency tasked with the reduction of
crime, to alter an individual’s age, race, gender or marital status.

Yet whilst we can do little to alter risk associated with personal characteristics of
victims, there is a vast amount that agencies can do to alter risk associated with the
location in which a crime takes place, be that a house, a car park or open space. For
example, the average risk of household crime in England and Wales in 2014-2015
was 12.1%. For a detached house this decreased to 9.1%, for a terraced property this
increased to 15%. We also know that risk of crime varies according to a property’s
position on a development – corner plots experiencing more crime (Groff and La
Vigne, 2001; Armitage et al, 2010) and being perceived by burglars as more attractive
as a target for burglary (Taylor and Nee, 1988; Cromwell and Olson, 1991; Armitage
and Joyce, in press). Properties visible from footpaths experience higher levels of
crime (Armitage, 2006a; Armitage et al, 2010) and properties designed to be
overlooked by others experience less crime (Winchester and Jackson, 1982;
1
Armitage, 2006a; Armitage et al, 2010), being judged by burglars to be undesirable as
a target for burglary (Brown and Bentley, 1993; Reppetto, 1974; Nee and Meenaghan,
2006 and Armitage and Joyce, in press). These variables are all within the control of
agencies tasked with the reduction of crime in England and Wales. Local authority
Planning Departments receive planning applications for housing developments.
Building/Development Control assess compliance with Building Regulations (for
housing standards) and Police Architectural Liaison Officers/Crime Prevention
Design Advisors/Designing out Crime Officers (ALO/CPDA/DOCOs) are consulted
on the crime risk associated with proposed developments. All of these agencies are
required by Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) to do all that they
reasonably can to prevent crime; all are required by national planning policy and
guidance to build safe communities and to consider crime prevention and security
within planning, and all, to some extent, will be required by their Local Plan to design
safe and sustainable communities.

Research tells us that crime is “a risk to be calculated…or an accident to be avoided,

rather than a moral aberration which needs to be explained” (Garland, 1996, p. 450-
451), and that many of those risks, particularly relating to burglary and vehicle crime,
relate, to a large extent, to the design and layout of housing developments. These
findings support a group a theories, known collectively as Opportunity Theories, that
contend that opportunity plays a major role in influencing where and when crime will
take place. These theories include Routine Activity Theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979),
Rational Choice Theory (Cornish and Clarke, 1986) and Crime Pattern Theory
(Brantingham and Brantingham, 1981). A full account of these theories is included in
Part One of this book, but to recap, the basic assertions are that for a crime to occur,
there has to be a suitable target - in the case of burglary, a vulnerable property. There
has to be a likely offender - someone motivated to commit this offence, and the
absence of a capable guardian – a resident, neighbour or passer-by who would
challenge the offender, call the police and draw attention to the potential event
(Routine Activity Theory). Opportunity Theories also argue that offenders select
targets based upon what they become aware of as they go about their day-to-day
activities and move between the places that they frequent (Crime Pattern Theory), and
that offenders will seek to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks when making
decisions about their offending choices (Rational Choice Theory).

What is Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)?

Approaches to crime reduction that adopt this theoretical perspective would therefore
aim to block these opportunities, and in the case of Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED), this is achieved through the design and
manipulation of the built environment. Housing estates are designed to limit the
likelihood that potential offenders will pass by, and therefore become aware of,
properties as suitable targets for offending. This is achieved through limiting
unnecessary through movement in the form of connecting footpaths. The layout of
housing within a residential area is also designed to maximise the likelihood that
offenders will be observed (or that they perceive they are being observed), by
residents, neighbours and/or passers-by. Opportunities for surveillance are thus
maximised through the orientation of buildings, the size and positioning of windows
and the absence of visual obstructions. Should these measures fail to deter potential

2
offenders, and they do become aware of a vulnerable property and are not deterred by
the risk of surveillance, the standards of physical security (including doors, windows,
locks) incorporated within the design of each property will make it very difficult for
them to successfully break-in and enter.

A commonly used formal definition of CPTED is that used by Tim Crowe who
characterised it as: ‘The proper design and effective use of the built environment, that
can lead to a reduction in the fear or incidence of crime and an improvement in
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, 2000,
p. 46). Ekblom (2011) proposes a redefinition and presents the following alternative,
which introduces several points not included within Crowe’s definition - including the
balance between security and contextually appropriate design and the possibility of
intervening at different stages between pre-planning and post construction. Ekblom
states that CPTED is: ‘Reducing the possibility, probability and harm from criminal
and related events, and enhancing the quality of life through community safety;
through the processes of planning and design of the environment; on a range of
scales and types of place, from individual buildings and interiors to wider landscapes,
neighbourhoods and cities; to produce designs that are ‘fit for purpose’, contextually
appropriate in all other respects and not ‘vulnerability led’; whilst achieving a
balance between the efficiency of avoiding crime problems before construction and
the adaptability of tackling them through subsequent management and maintenance’
(Ekblom , 2011, p. 4). More recently, research within the field of CPTED has focused
upon the effectiveness of both the individual and collectively applied principles of
CPTED measures in reducing crime and the fear of crime (by authors such as
Armitage, 2000; 2006a; Cozens, 2008; Cozens et al, 2005; Hillier and Sahbaz, 2009;
Pascoe, 1999), the process of applying CPTED principles within police and planning
environments (by authors such as Monchuk, 2011), the development of CPTED based
risk assessment tools to predict (and prevent) risk (by authors such as Armitage, 2006;
Armitage et al, 2010; Van der Voordt and Van Wegen, 1990; Winchester and
Jackson, 1982), and a wider approach to the potential benefits of such interventions
including the impact upon environmental and social sustainability (by authors such as
Armitage and Monchuk, 2011; Cozens, 2007; Dewberry, 2003). Given a widening of
the focus to include the process of application and consideration of benefits beyond
crime reduction, such as social and environmental sustainability, a more appropriate
definition of CPTED might be: The design, manipulation and management of the built
environment to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to enhance sustainability
through the process and application of measures at the micro (individual
building/structure) and macro (neighbourhood) level.

The principles of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)

Explaining CPTED as a crime reduction method requires some discussion of the
principles (or elements) that form this approach. Conscious that these principles are
often presented as a given, with little discussion regarding their origins, definition,
relevance to different countries, climates and cultures or their impact (individual or
combined) upon the reduction of crime, the following section will attempt to tackle
these oft omitted debates.

3
The principles of CPTED have been presented by several authors, including, but not
exclusively, Poyner (1983), Cozens et al (2005) and Armitage (2013) and these have
been adopted to form the basis of planning policy and guidance as well as CPTED
based interventions such as Secured by Design (SBD) in England and Wales and
Police Label Secure Housing in the Netherlands. Poyner (1983) outlined the
principles as surveillance, movement control, activity support and motivational
reinforcement. Cozens et al (2005) extended this to include the seven principles of
defensible space, access control, territoriality, surveillance, target hardening, image
and activity support. Armitage (2013) offered yet another combination of physical
security, surveillance, movement control, management and maintenance and
defensible space. This chapter will focus upon the principles of CPTED as defined by
Armitage (2013).

Defensible space and territoriality

The term defensible space was coined by Oscar Newman (1973) who suggested that
the physical design of a neighbourhood can either increase or inhibit people’s sense of
control over the spaces in which they reside. Newman categorised space into public
(for example, the road in front of a property), semi-public (for example, the front
garden), semi-private (for example, the back garden) and private (inside the property).
He argued that if space is defensible, it will be clear to the owner/user of that space,
and to non-legitimate users, who should and who should not be in this space. CPTED
interventions ensure that space is clearly demarcated, that it is obvious who has
ownership of that space and that potential offenders have no excuse to be in that
space. This would rarely be achieved through the installation of physical barriers;
rather, interventions would include subtle measures such as a change in road colour
and texture or a narrowing of the entrance to the development to mark the area as
private. This is often referred to as a symbolic (as opposed to a physical) barrier.
Offenders are not physically blocked from entering the area; the aim is to convince
them that in entering an area they are crossing a boundary into private space and in
doing so are more likely to be observed or challenged by those with ownership of that
space.

Brown and Altman (1983) and Armitage (2006) found that, compared with non-
burgled houses, properties that had experienced a burglary had fewer symbolic (as
well as actual) barriers. In their study of 851 properties in Enschede (The
Netherlands), Montoya et al (2014) found that houses with a front garden had a
burglary risk 0.46 times lower than those without.

Defensible space should, if working effectively, create territorial responses amongst

the owners or managers of a space. This might take the form of challenging a
stranger, calling the police, or simply making their presence known as a means of
assuring the stranger that they are being observed. Brown and Bentley (1993)
interviewed offenders, asking them to judge (from pictures) which properties would
be more vulnerable to burglary. The results revealed that properties showing signs of
territorial behavior (such as the installation of a gateway at the front of the property or
a sign on the gate/door marking the area as private) were perceived by offenders to be
less vulnerable to burglary. Montoya et al (2014) also found a significant relationship
between signs of territorial responses and burglary risk, but only for daytime (as
opposed to night time) burglary offences. Recent research (Armitage and Joyce, in

4
press) conducted with twenty convicted prolific adult burglars, currently serving a
prison sentence for burglary offences, found that, whilst images depicting defensible
space or territorial responses (such as a change in road colour or texture, a ‘private’
sign or a narrowing of the road entrance) did not elicit the greatest concern as a
burglary deterrent, several expressed the view that they would avoid these areas. On
being shown an image of a cul-de-sac with a narrowing at the entrance, a change in
road colour and texture to mark the entrance and ‘Private Road’ written on the road,
Offender Three stated:

“People living here will have a bee in their bonnet! This is a private road for
private people. I would feel awkward here. It’s all about the bluff and I
couldn’t pull it off here” (Offender Three).

Limiting through movement

The principle of limiting through movement is based upon the theoretical
underpinnings of both Crime Pattern and Rational Choice approaches (discussed
earlier within this chapter). If offenders select targets based upon what they become
aware of as they conduct their day-to-day activities, all things being equal, properties
located on or close to popular travel paths will experience more crime. If offenders
select targets that increase their likelihood of reward and reduce the risk of being
caught, then they will select targets with easy access and escape routes. Thus, limiting
the through movement into, through and out of a housing development will reduce the
likelihood that an offender will become aware of a vulnerable property (suitable
target). It will also reduce the likelihood that an offender will make a rational choice
that the target will offer more reward than risk. In the case of CPTED and housing
design, through movement refers to the presence of formal or informal footpaths –
sometimes referred to as alleys, ginnels or alleyways. These are pedestrian paths, not
accessible by motor vehicle. In most cases these footpaths link a housing estate to
another residential area, to shops, to a park or school. However, in some cases these
are simply access paths that run at the side or rear of houses (usually terraced
housing) to allow residents to access the rear of the property without entering the
house.

Research studies have utilised a variety of methods to establish the extent to which
crime risk varies according to levels of through movement within a housing
development. These include analysis of police recorded crime as well as interviews
with convicted burglars. The key research findings are summarised in Table 1, with
the most recent studies discussed in detail below.

Study Revealed that: Study Reference

Being located on a development with high levels of Bevis and Nutter (1977)
permeability/connectivity/through-movement increases Rubenstein et al (1980)
the risk of crime Taylor and Gottfredson (1987)
Van der Voordt and Van Wegen
(1990)
White (1990)
Poyner and Webb (1991)
Beavon et al (1994)

5
 Mirlees-Black et al (1998)
Rengert and Hakim (1998)
Hakim et al (2001)
Taylor (2002)
Nubani and Wineman (2005)
Yang (2006)
Armitage (2006)
Armitage et al (2010)
Being located on a travel path increases the risk of Letkemann (1973)
crime Brantingham and Brantingham
(1984)
Feeney (1986)
Gabor et al (1987)
Poyner and Webb (1991)
Wiles and Costello (2000)
Rengert and Wasilchick (2000)
Being located on a culs-de-sac, or a development with Bevis and Nutter (1977)
low connectivity, reduces the risk of crime Johnson and Bowers (2010)
Armitage et al (2010)
Closing off streets reduces crime Matthews (1992)
Atlas and LeBlanc (1994)
Newman (1995,1996)
Donnelly and Kimble (1997)
Wagner (1997)
Lasley (1998)
Zavoski et al (1999)
Eck (2002)
Farrington and Welsh (2009)
Being located on a leaky culs-de-sac increases the risk Hillier (2004)
of crime Armitage (2006)
Armitage et al (2010)
Being located on a development with high levels of Hillier and Shu (1998)
permeability/connectivity/through-movement reduces Shu (2000)
the risk of crime Hillier (2004)
Hillier and Sahbaz (2009)
Table One: Key Research Findings - Through Movement and Crime Risk

In their study of the impact of through movement on burglary risk in Merseyside,

England, Johnson and Bowers (2010) test three hypotheses: 1) Risk of burglary will
be greater on major roads and those intended to be used more frequently: 2) Risk of
burglary will be higher on street segments that are connected to other segments,
particularly where those to which they are connected have higher intended usage, and
3) risk of burglary will be lower in culs-de-sac, particularly those that are non-linear
and not integrated into the wider network of roads. Their sample included 118,161
homes and used both GIS (Geographic Information System) software and manual
identification to establish road networks and police recorded crime data to measure
burglary levels. The results, which controlled for socio-economic influences, revealed
that if a street segment is part of a major road i, all other things being equal, compared
to a local road ii there is an expected increase in the volume of residential burglaries on
that segment of 22%. In contrast, for street segments classed as private roads iii,
6
compared to a local road, there would be a 43% decrease in burglary. In terms of road
network, the study suggested that for each additional link to other roads, the predicted
burglary count would increase by a factor of 3%. If a street segment had five more
connections than another, there would be an expected increase in burglaries at that
segment of 16%. In terms of connectivity, the results revealed that being linked to one
other major road increases the expected count of burglary by 8%. In contrast, being
linked to a private road decreases the estimated burglary levels by 8%. The study
concludes that culs-de-sac are safer than through roads and that sinuous (as opposed
to linear) culs-de-sac are safer still – a sinuous cul-de-sac is curved so that, when
standing at the entrance, you cannot see all the way to the end. Unfortunately,
although culs-de-sac were manually identified within this study, there was no
distinction between true (no connecting footpaths) and leaky (with connecting
footpaths) culs-de-sac. Research conducted by Hillier (2004), Armitage (2006) and
Armitage et al (2010) suggests that leaky culs-de-sac are the road layout most
vulnerable to burglary.

Armitage et al (2010) analysed the design features of over 6,000 properties on 44

housing developments within the three police forces of Greater Manchester, Kent and
West Midlands (England). Individual properties, their boundaries and the layout of
the development on which they were located were meticulously and manually
analysed and compared with prior victimisation (at property and development level).
The results revealed that, compared to true culs-de-sac (those with no connecting
paths), through roads experienced 93% more crime and leaky culs-de-sac (those with
connecting paths) experiencing 110% more crime. The analysis also identified that
crime risk was lower on sinuous compared to linear culs-de-sac - confirming the
findings from Johnson and Bowers (2010).

Several studies have also highlighted through-movement as a criminogenic feature in

their production of crime risk-assessment mechanisms. Armitage’s (2006a) Burgess
Checklist (derived from Simon’s Burgess Points System, 1971) allows the user to
predict a property’s crime risk based upon its design features. The Burgess score is
derived from the difference between the mean rate of crime suffered generally (by the
whole sample) and the rate of crime suffered by houses with a particular design
feature. Armitage identified through movement as a key factor associated with both
burglary and crime-prone homes. Six of the 13 environmental factors which were
associated with risk of burglary (at a statistically significant level), and eight of the 17
factors which were associated with total crime (at a statistically significant level) were
related to permeability and through-movement. In their Delft Checklist, Van der
Voordt and Van (1990) also identified several factors relating to access and through
movement which increased a property’s vulnerability to crime, these were: Number of
entrances and escape routes, the ease of access to entrance and escape routes, the
physical accessibility of entrance and escape routes and the absence of symbolic
barriers.

In addition to the analysis of police recorded crime data, Wiles and Costello (2000)
used interviews with offenders and forensic data from the police DNA database as a
means of investigating the decision making of offenders and the distance that they
will travel to offend. The dominant reason given by offenders for selecting a target
was chance (63% of offenders). Thirty-one per cent of the sample stated their reason
for target selection as ‘passing and security looked poor’, 26% stated that they

7
selected a target because they were ‘passing and it looked unoccupied’ and 26%
stated that they were ‘passing and the property looked isolated’. This confirms the
premise that offenders will make target selections based on what they become aware
of as they go about their daily activities and pass potential targets - each of these
responses stating that the offender ‘was passing’ when making that judgement.
Limiting through movement would reduce the likelihood of an offender ‘passing by’ a
property.

Additional research findings which support the premise that offenders select
properties as they take part in day to day activities include Letkemann (1973) who
found that burglars interviewed in British Columbia stated that they generally kept
their eyes open for targets all of the time. Rengert and Wasilchick (2000) also found
that convicted Philadelphia area burglars usually picked their targets within a limited
distance of their normal travel paths, primarily along the axis of their usual home-to-
work travel path. Research conducted by Armitage and Joyce (in press) found that
convicted prolific burglars favour developments with high levels of through
movement for three major reasons. The first relates to the ease of access/egress this
allows – primarily giving them an advantage over police who will be less aware of the
area. The second rationale relates to the extent to which footpaths enable search
behaviour, and finally, linked to the second, the belief that footpaths legitimise the
search behaviour – a footpath is a public space and offenders are entitled to use that
space. On being shown an image of a footpath running through a housing estate,
Offender Two stated:

“Yes, this is perfect! Easy pickings. I would first walk up and down this
footpath. No-one would give me a second glance. Even if I was a tramp
walking up and down I wouldn’t look out of place – it’s a footpath, no-one can
question you” (Offender Two).

Offenders confirmed the findings from Johnson and Bowers (2010) and Armitage et
al (2010) that true culs-de-sac are a less attractive target. The reasons given were that
you are likely to stand out as a stranger because “everyone knows each other”
(Offender Two) and because, on a true cul-de-sac you have to exit the estate the way
that you went it – increasing the chances of detection. Offender Five summarised
these suggestions:

I wouldn’t go further into the cul-de-sac. There is no reason to be on a cul-de-

sac unless you live there. You aren’t going anywhere so you are a stranger. If
it’s a through road you can just keep walking through. I feel like people know
each other and they will see me as a stranger (Offender Five).

In a review of the evidence relating to the impact of through movement on crime,

Taylor (2002) concludes that: “Neighbourhood permeability is … one of the
community level design features most reliably linked to crime rates, and the
connections operate consistently in the same direction across studies: more
permeability, more crime” (Taylor, 2002 p. 419). This assertion is over generalised.
Whilst the vast majority of literature (see Table One) confirms that through-
movement within residential housing increases the risk of crime, there are a small
number of studies (usually conducted using Space Syntax techniques) that argue that,
based upon the premise that more people equates to more surveillance – what Jane

8
Jacobs (1961) refers to as eyes on the street, increased through movement reduces the
risk of crime (Jones and Fanek, 1997; Hillier and Shu, 1998; Hillier and Shu, 2000
and Shu and Huang, 2003; Hillier, 2004). The premise being that an increased
presence of individuals will deter potential offenders or increase the chances of
detection should they commit a crime. As can be seen in Table One, whilst there is
some disparity amongst research studies regarding the impact of through movement
on crime, there is little doubt from the research that increased through movement
enhances crime risk.

Surveillance
Surveillance refers to the way that an area is designed to maximise the ability of
formal (security guards, police, employees) or informal (residents, passers-by,
shoppers) users of the space to observe suspicious behaviour. Within CPTED,
surveillance rarely relates to formal measures but refers more to the informal
surveillance created through, say, ensuring that dwelling entrances face the street, that
rooms facing the street are active (such as the kitchen or living room) and that
sightlines are not obstructed by shrubbery or high walls. Linked with territoriality,
the principle of surveillance requires users of that space to recognise that an
individual is behaving in a suspicious manner (be that through their behaviour or
simply their presence within a private/semi-private area) and to have the confidence
to challenge them or intervene. Therefore, the term surveillance includes the
operational tasks of active (formal) and passive (informal) surveillance, the
surveillability (Ekblom, 2011) of that space and the creation of the perception
amongst offenders that they are being observed.

Research suggests that surveillance and visibility play a major part in offenders’
decision-making processes when selecting properties to offend against. Offenders
prefer to avoid confrontation and, where possible, select targets which are
unoccupied. Reppetto (1974) interviewed 97 convicted burglars and found that the
most common reason for avoiding a target was that there were too many people
around. Offenders stated that the possibility of neighbours watching them deterred
them from selecting a property and that they would select targets where they felt less
conspicuous and where there was less visual access to neighbouring properties. In
interviews with a sample of 30 active burglars, Cromwell and Olson (1991) found that
over ninety per cent of the sample stated that they would never enter a residence
which they suspected to be occupied.

Brown and Bentley (1993) asked 72 incarcerated burglars to assess, from

photographs, whether or not properties had been burgled. Across all ten homes, the
houses judged to be occupied were perceived by the burglars as being those which
had not been burgled.

Nee and Meenaghan (2006) interviewed fifty residential burglars in the UK. The
findings confirm those presented above, that offenders prefer to select unoccupied
properties, and properties with little or no surveillance from neighbouring houses. The
most commonly referred to feature of attractive targets was the degree of cover (47
respondents). Three-quarters (38) of the sample preferred a property to be
unoccupied, with two-thirds of that number checking this by knocking on the door or
ringing the bell.

9
When assessing the design characteristics of victimised properties, several studies
identified a lack of surveillance or poor levels of visibility as key features of crime-
prone homes (for example, Armitage, 2006; Armitage et al, 2010; Winchester and
Jackson, 1982; Van der Voordt and Van Wegen, 19990). Armitage (2006) found that
there was a complex relationship between surveillance and crime risk. Surveillance
from neighbouring properties appeared to reduce crime risk, yet surveillance from a
nearby road or footpath enhanced a property’s risk of crime (linked to Crime Pattern
Theory and the importance of awareness space). Armitage’s research found that being
overlooked at the front by neighbouring properties produced a Burgess risk score of -
0.6 (suggesting a less than average crime risk). Not being overlooked at the front
produced a Burgess risk score of +5.7 (an above average crime risk). This is clearly
related to the benefit of informal surveillance from neighbours who are able, and
likely, to act as Capable Guardians. Where a property was visible from a nearby
footpath, crime risk increased (Burgess score of +6.3), as did risk for properties
located within viewing distance of traffic lights (Burgess risk score of +46.6 - the
second highest score).

Research conducted across three police forces in the UK revealed findings to support
those presented above. Armitage et al (2010) found that properties overlooked by
between three and five other properties experienced 38% less crime than those not
overlooked.

Winchester and Jackson (1982) found that, of the 14 design variables linked to
heightened risk of burglary, eight relate to a lack of surveillance from neighbouring
properties. These variables include: property is isolated, property is set in a location
with less than five other houses in sight, property is set at a distance from the road on
which it stands, property is not overlooked at the front by other houses, property is not
overlooked on either side by other houses, the majority of the sides of the house are
not visible from a public area, the property is set at a distance from the nearest house
and the property frontage is obscured from roadside view.

Brown and Altman (1983) studied 306 burgled and non-burgled properties and found
that burgled houses showed fewer indications of the probable presence of residents
that non-burgled properties. These signs or traces included toys strewn across the yard
or sprinklers operating in the garden. Brown and Altman also found that burgled
properties had less visual access to neighbouring properties.

As was referred to above, Van der Voordt and Van Wegen (1990) also developed a
checklist for measuring the risk of crime – the Delft Checklist. Of the factors which
they identified as predictors of crime risk, several related to surveillance and
visibility. These were: visual contact between buildings, amenities and outside spaces,
sightlines between buildings and adequate levels of lighting.

Authors such as Jane Jacobs (1961) highlight the importance of informal surveillance
from those living and working within an area and from those users of the space who
are simply passing by. Jacobs refers to this as ‘eyes on the street’, commenting:

‘...there must be eyes on the street, eyes belonging to those we might

call the natural proprietors of the street...the sidewalk must have users

10
 on it fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on
the street and to induce a sufficient number of people in buildings along
the street to watch the sidewalks’ (Jacobs, 1961, p.35).

Of course this argument has many weaknesses, the most notable being that, whilst a
street may be surveyed by many people, those people do not always notice crimes
taking place (Gelfand et al, 1973; Mayhew, 1979) and if they do, they do not always
intervene (Rosenthal, 1964; Latane and Darley, 1970). This concept of self policing,
which may apply in busy cities (which were the focus of Jacobs’ work) is also
weakened when transferred to suburban residential developments which are less
densely populated. As Cozens (2011) highlights, many social as well as design factors
make this concept less likely to apply within residential settings. In many cultures, it
is common for both adults within a household to work full-time and developments
have few or no community facilities, making surveillance from those living, working
and passing through the area, less likely to take place.

Recognising the difference between predicted/potential surveillance and that which

actually takes place, Reynald (2009) conducted a study which measured the
relationship between guardianship intensity and surveillance opportunities on a
sample of 814 residential properties in The Hague. Reynald measured guardianship
intensity using a four-stage model which moves from stage one – invisible guardian
stage (no evidence that the property is occupied), to stage two – available guardian
stage (evidence that the property is occupied), to stage three – the capable guardian
stage (fieldworkers are observed by residents), to stage four – intervening guardian
stage (fieldworkers are challenged by residents). Surveillance opportunities were
measured by observing the extent to which the view of a property’s windows was
obstructed by physical features such as trees and walls. The results revealed a positive
statistically significant correlation between surveillance opportunities and
guardianship intensity (0.45), suggesting that guardianship intensity increases as
opportunities for surveillance increase. When assessing the relationship between
crime and guardianship intensity, the results were positive and statistically significant.
The analysis revealed that crime decreases consistently at each stage of the four-stage
model. Crime drops significantly between the invisible and available guardian stages,
decreasing even more at the capable guardian stage and slightly more at the
intervening stage.

Study Revealed Study Reference

Offenders avoid properties with visual access to Repetto (1974)

neighbouring houses.
Offenders select targets with less visual access to Repetto (1974)
neighbouring properties. Nee and Meenaghan (2006)
Offenders select targets which are unoccupied. Cromwell et al (1991)
Nee and Meenaghan (2006)
Offenders avoid targets which are occupied (or perceived Brown and Bentley (1973)
to be occupied).
Increasing levels of surveillance enhances guardianship Reynald (2009)
activity.
Properties overlooked by neighbouring properties Armitage (2006)
experience less crime. Armitage et al (2010)
11
 Winchester and Jackson (1982)
Van der Voordt and Van Wegen
(1990)
Properties not overlooked by neighbouring properties Armitage (2006)
experience more crime. Armitage et al (2010)
Winchester and Jackson (1982)
Van der Voordt and Van Wegen
(1990)
Properties with less visual signs of presence of residents Brown and Altman (1983)
experience more crime.
Properties with front door facing away from the street Coleman (1986)
experience more physical and social decay.
Properties with view from roadside obscured/obstructed Winchester and Jackson (1982)
experience more crime.
Properties visible from nearby footpaths experience more Armitage (2006)
crime. Armitage et al (2010)
Property located within close proximity of stop sign, Cromwell et al (1991)
traffic lights, commercial business establishment, park,
church or busy road are more attractive to offenders.
Properties located within viewing distance of traffic Armitage (2006)
lights experience more crime.
Properties located on a main road experience more crime. Winchester and Jackson (1982)
Groff and La Vigne (2001)
Increased levels of street activity reduces crime. Jacobs (1961)
Properties in areas less illuminated by street lighting Groff and La Vigne (2001)
experience more crime. Van der Voordt and Van Wegen
(1990)
Welsh and Farrington (2009)
Table Two: Key research findings - Surveillance and Visibility

Physical security
Physical security (or target hardening) refers to the standards of windows, doors,
locks, fences, or other physical structures of a property and its boundary, that increase
the difficulty for offenders in entering a building or space. Research on security
measures as a means of preventing burglary suggests that, all other factors being
equal, burglars prefer to offend against properties with lower levels of physical
security (Cromwell and Olson, 1991). Budd’s (1999) analysis of the British Crime
Survey found that security devices are extremely effective in reducing the risk of
burglary victimization. Budd found that, in England and Wales in 1997, 15% of
households without security measures were burgled, compared to just 4% of
households with basic measures in place and 3% with higher levels of security.

Vollaard and Ours (2011) report the findings of an extensive assessment of built-in
security in the Netherlands. This study utilises the introduction of changes in building
regulations introduced in 1999 which required all windows and doors (for new build
properties) to be made from material certified and approved by the European ENV
1627:1994 Class 2 standard, or the Dutch NEN 5096, Class 2 standard. Using data
from four waves of the annual National Victimization Survey (VMR), the results
reveal that the regulatory change resulted in a reduction in burglary (within the

12
sample) from 1.1 to 0.8 per cent annually – a reduction of 26 per cent. The results also
reveal that the enhancement in security within new homes resulted in increased
protection for older, less-protected homes within close proximity of the new homes –
thus suggesting a diffusion of crime control benefits (see Clarke and Weisburd, 1994).
The analysis also suggests that burglary offences are not being displaced to other
property crimes such as bicycle or vehicle theft. These regulations relate specifically
to the physical security of property, and not the wider CPTED measures required by
the Police Label Secure Housing scheme (discussed in more detail below). To ensure
that the effect being measured was independent of the scheme, these properties were
excluded from the sample. Research conducted by Montoya, Junger and Ongena
(2014) in the Netherlands confirm these findings.

In interviews with convicted prolific burglars in the UK, Armitage and Joyce (in
press) found that, with the exception of one brand of monitored burglar alarms,
offenders were not deterred by the presence of an alarm, suggesting that: a) only one
brand of alarm continues to sound when the internal box is ripped off the wall, b) the
majority of neighbours would simply view that noise as an annoyance and not
respond, c) they would cover the external box in sealant foam the night before to
dumb the alarm, or d) they would simply allow the alarm to go off and come back
when it had finished.

Tseloni et al (2014) conducted an in-depth analysis of the relationship between

physical security measures and burglary risk in England and Wales. Using data from
four sweeps of the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) - formerly the
British Crime Survey, they presented the crime reduction benefits of individual and
combined security features reported to be present by those taking part in the survey.
The research found that certain combinations of security features confer a crime
reduction advantage, but that the protection conferred against burglary does not
consistently increase with the number of devices installed. The analysis suggested that
if only one security device was to be installed, the most effective device would be
external lights on a sensor. If one further device was to be added, the most effective
pair of security devices would be window locks and external lights. The ultimate
choice for balancing out the number of devices and protection against burglary was
window and door locks together with either external lights or a security chain. The
study concluded that individual security devices confer up to three times greater
protection against burglary than no security and that combinations of security devices
in general afford up to fifty times more protection than no security.

The same study looked at the protection afforded by burglar alarms on properties
covered by multiple sweeps of the CSEW. The results (published in Tilley et al,
2015) revealed that for the majority of CSEW sweeps, burglar alarms were associated
with either no change or, more often, a substantial increase in the risk of burglary
with entry. The results also suggested that the presence of a burglar alarm seems to be
diminishing as a protective factor with earlier sweeps showing a positive impact on
burglary with entry. This is despite the technical advances in the quality of burglar
alarms systems. Tilley et al (2015) propose seven possible hypotheses to explain this
counterintuitive finding. These include: i) dodgy data, ii) respondent error - that the
respondent has reported that the alarm was installed at the time of the burglary when
in actual fact it was installed as a consequence of the burglary (and therefore post-
victimisation), iii) latent repeat victims – that the alarm was installed as a response to

13
a previous burglary and it is that burglary that boosts the likelihood of repeat
victimization, iv) adaptive offenders, v) flags for target attractiveness – that the
presence of an alarm suggests rich pickings, vi) dilution/discredit/drowned out – that
the mass availability of alarms has meant that their deterrent effect is diluted, vii)
heterogeneity in systems and effects – that the CSEW only measures the presence of
an alarm, not the standard or quality of each device.

Image/management and maintenance

Cozens et al (2005) use the term image, while others have used management and
maintenance to cover the principle of creating buildings/spaces which are physically
free from litter, graffiti, vandalism and damage but are also areas without stigma or a
poor social reputation.

Several studies have suggested that if low-level disorder such as vandalism and litter
are not addressed, they can act as a catalyst for more serious crimes. Skogan (1990)
refers to this as the contagion theory, suggesting that the “presence of vandalism
stimulates more vandalism” (p.39). Wilson and Kelling (1982) refer to this
contagious effect as the “broken windows theory” (p.16). This suggests that an area
with existing deterioration such as graffiti and vandalism conveys the impression that
a) nobody cares so apprehension is less likely and b) the area is already untidy so one
more act will go unnoticed. This is supported by Taylor and Gottfredson (1987), and
later tested by Keizer et al (2008), who found that physical incivilities indirectly
influence offenders’ perception of risk in that they portray a resident’s level of care or
concern for the area in which they live, thus acting as an indicator for the likelihood
that they will intervene if they detect an offence taking place.

In her study of the link between environmental design features and crime within West
Yorkshire, Armitage (2006) found evidence of brief and long-term desertion to be
statistically significantly associated with prior burglary in a sample of 1058
properties. Forty two per cent of the properties which showed signs of brief desertion
had been burgled at least once; this was compared to just 15.8% of properties which
did not show signs of brief desertion. Additionally, 45.5% of the properties which
showed signs of lengthy desertion had been burgled at least once. This was compared
to a figure of just 15.8% for houses without signs of lengthy desertion.

In a series of papers, Cozens et al (2001, 2002a and 2002b) revealed photographs of

two contrasting versions, one being well maintained, the other poorly maintained, of
five housing designs – detached, semi-detached, terraced, low-rise flats and high rise
flats. Participants were asked to judge each property’s vulnerability to burglary. The
results revealed that elderly residents, convicted burglars, planning professionals,
police and young adults consistently selected the ‘well maintained’ option as the
safest for all five design types.

In recent research, Armitage and Joyce (in press) have refuted the importance of this
principle, with none of the offenders interviewed suggesting that an un-maintained
property would attract them (based on the premise that the residents are unlikely to
challenge them). When shown images of untidy properties, almost all offenders stated
that they would not be attracted to the property because “there would be nothing to
take” (Offender 2). More worrying, a number of offenders stated the opposite, that a

14
tidy property would attract them as it suggests that there would be financial rewards:
“You want a nice tidy garden, if you mow your lawn, you care for your house and will
have nice things” (Offender 13).

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) in practice

There are examples, England and Wales and the Netherlands being the most notable,
of interventions that bring these CPTED principles together as award schemes. In
England and Wales, the Secured by Design (SBD) scheme is managed by the
Association of Chief Police Officers Crime Prevention Initiatives (ACPO CPI) iv and
is run on a day-to-day basis by local police ALOs, CPDAs or DOCOs whose role is to
ensure that developments are designed and built to certain specifications. Within
England and Wales, these roles have traditionally been performed by warranted
police, although cuts in police budgets have led, not only to a dramatic reduction in
numbers (from 347 in January 2009 to 125 in November 2014), but also towards
moves to civilianise this role. SBD is based upon the key principles of CPTED and
sets standards for properties and the wider development based upon physical security,
surveillance, through movement, territoriality and management and maintenance.
There have been five published evaluations of the effectiveness of the SBD scheme
(Brown, 1999; Pascoe, 1999; Armitage, 2000, Teedon et al, 2009 and 2010; Armitage
and Monchuk, 2011) each concluding that SBD confers a crime reduction advantage.

Several studies have also concluded that the SBD scheme is a cost-effective measure
(Armitage, 2000; Association of British Insurers, 2006; Teedon et al, 2009). The
Association of British Insurers (2006) estimate that the over-costs of building to the
SBD standard are £200 for a four-bedroom detached house, £170 for a three or two-
bedroom detached house, £240 for a ground floor apartment and £70 for an upper
floor apartment. Pease and Gill (2011) re-analysed the findings from Armitage and
Monchuk’s (2011) study of the effectiveness of SBD, and established that, taking the
Davis Langdon (2010) figures for the cost of SBD and setting these against the crimes
saved, SBD pays for itself in just under two years considering only burglary and
criminal damage offences. The inclusion of other offences, they state, would reduce
this period.

The Netherlands has a similar award scheme – Police Label Secure Housing. Unlike
the SBD scheme, this award (which was originally owned and managed by the police)
is managed by the Dutch government who adopted the police label into their planning
policy guidelines and since 2004 it has been required that every new estate or
dwelling be built in accordance with the police label or an equivalent label. Although
the award was modelled on SBD, there are several distinctions which mark the two
schemes apart. The first is that the label is split into three different certificates –
Secured Dwelling, Secured Building and Secured Neighbourhood. These can be
issued separately but together they form the Police Label Secure Housing award. The
label is also less prescriptive than SBD with more flexibility for developers aiming to
achieve a secure development. The requirements are set out under five categories
(urban planning and design, public areas, layout, building, dwelling) and these include
performance requirements (what) and specifications which indicate the way in which
those requirements will be met (how). As a means of encouraging creativity and
avoiding the risk of developers ‘designing down’ to specific requirements, where a
developer offers a solution which differs from that set out in the ‘how’, but can still

15
demonstrate the same preventative effect, then this will be considered. The scheme
also differs in that it is valid for ten years only and after this period, a re-assessment is
required. In terms of the delivery of the scheme, the system is very similar to that
within England and Wales. Until 2009, each police region had a number of Building
Plan Advisors (Bouwplanadviseur) whose role was very similar to the
ALO/CPDA/DOCO role. As a response to budget cuts, the role has been civilianised
and is run by the municipalities either through the employment of external consultants
or civilian Building Plan Advisors located in-house.

Conclusion
This chapter has briefly outlined the theories upon which CPTED is based; it has
presented a discussion of the five principles that form this approach alongside
evidence of their effectiveness, alone or combined, in reducing crime. The chapter has
also briefly introduced the approaches to implementing CPTED in England and Wales
and the Netherlands – two countries in which crime reduction has been given
particular consideration within the planning system. CPTED has received criticism as
a crime reduction approach – some argue that it focuses too heavily upon the event as
opposed to the offender, ignoring the root causes of crime; it places too much
responsibility on victims to take preventative action, and it is too simplistic. One of
the central difficulties in convincing senior practitioners and policy makers of the
benefits of this approach is the length of time it takes for any crime reduction benefits
to become apparent. Think of the time it takes for a planning application to be
submitted, considered (and possibly rejected, re-submitted and reconsidered), for the
development to be built, sold, occupied and then for a crime problem to emerge. This
is not a quick win! In many cases the crime reduction benefits of applying CPTED
principles may never become apparent. Take for example a field with no houses, and
therefore no burglary or acquisitive crime problems. If a housing estate is built on that
field and it meets the SBD criteria, crime is likely to be low, but within the life of that
development, there will be some crime and disorder incidents. Where are the crime
reduction benefits of building to SBD? Where is the praise for senior police or
planners making local policy decisions? Whilst there are limitations and areas for
improvement, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that CPTED is a cost-
effective crime reduction measure. That the individual principles upon which it is
based show crime reduction benefits, as do the combined implementation of these
principles. It is an approach that requires multi-agency working. Partners as diverse as
police, planners, architects, developers and social housing providers must work
together – meeting requirements such as those set out in Section 17 of the Crime and
Disorder Act (1998) in England and Wales. If implemented at the planning or pre-
planning stage, consideration for the principles of CPTED add very low extra costs to
a housing development, and the benefits outweigh these costs and last for decades. To
the criticism of simplicity, CPTED may not be rocket science, but as Ekblom (2011)
highlights, rocket science itself is actually ‘dead simple – feed fuel and oxidant into a
chamber, stand well back, ignite, apply Newton’s laws of motion, and whoosh’ (p.
279). Whilst this approach may not produce those much sought after ‘quick wins’, the
benefits (once they materialise) are likely to last for decades, or to make the
counterpoint, the failure to address vulnerabilities of design could leave a legacy of
increased crime risk for just as long a period. With CPTED we have a simple
technique that allows the opportunities for crime to be designed out of residential
housing before the problems emerge. It creates an environment in which key agencies

16
must work together to demonstrate and deliver their requirement to consider crime
prevention, and it creates environments where people want to live and work, both now
and in the future – the very definition of sustainable housing.

References
Armitage, R. (2000) An Evaluation of Secured by Design Housing within West
Yorkshire – Briefing Note 7/00. London: Home Office.

Armitage, R. (2006a) Predicting and Preventing: Developing a Risk Assessment

Mechanism for Residential Housing. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An
International Journal. 8(3), 137-149.

Armitage, R. (2013) Crime Prevention through Housing Design: Policy and Practice.
Palgrave Macmillan: Crime Prevention and Security Management Book Series.

Armitage, R, and Joyce, C. (in press) Why my house?” – Exploring offender

perspectives on risk and protective factors in residential housing design. In: R.
Armitage and P. Ekblom (Eds.) Rebuilding Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design. Oxford, England: Routledge.

Armitage, R, Monchuk, L, and Rogerson, M. (2010) It Looks Good, But What is it

Like to Live There? Assessing the Impact of Award Winning Design on Crime.
Special Volume of European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 17(1), 29-54.

Armitage, R, and Monchuk, L. (2011) Sustaining the Crime Reduction Impact of

Secured by Design: 1999 to 2009. Security Journal. 24(4), 320-343.

Association of British Insurers (2006) Securing the Nation. London: Association of

British Insurers.

Atlas, R. LeBlanc, W. G. (1994) The Impact On Crime Of Street Closures And

Barricades: A Florida Case Study. Security Journal. 5, 140-145.

Beavon, D.J.K., Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J.. (1994) The Influence of
Street Networks on the Patterning of Property Offences. In: R.V.Clarke (ed.) Crime
Prevention Studies, Volume 2. Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press. 115-148.

Bevis, C. and Nutter, J.B. (1997) Changing Street Layouts to Reduce Residential
Burglary. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology. Atlanta.

Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1981) Environmental Criminology.

Beverley Hills, Sage.

Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1984) Burglar Mobility and Preventive
Planning. In: R.V. Clarke and T. Hope (eds.) Coping with Burglary: Research
Perspectives on Policy. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. 77-96.

17
Brown, J. (1999) An Evaluation of the Secured by Design Initiative in Gwent, South
Wales. Unpublished MSc. dissertation, Scarman Centre for the Study of Public Order,
Leicester.

Brown, B.B. and Altman, I. (1983) Territoriality, Defensible Space and Residential
Burglary: An Environmental Analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 3, 203-
220.

Brown, B. and Bentley, D. (1993) Residential Burglars Judge Risk: The Role of
Territoriality. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 13, 51-61.

Budd, T. (1999) Burglary of Domestic Dwellings. Findings from the British Crime
Survey. Issue 4/1999. London: Home Office.

Clarke, R.V. and Weisburd, D. (1994). Diffusion of crime control benefits:

Observations on the reverse of displacement. In R.V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention
Studies, Vol. 2. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Cohen. L.E. and Felson.M. (1979) Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine
Activity Approach. American Sociological Review. 44, 588-608.

Cornish DB, Clarke RV (1986). The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice

Perspectives on Offending. Springer-Verlag: New York.

Cozens, P. (2007) Planning, Crime and Urban Sustainability. Transactions on

Ecology and the Environment. 102, 187-196.

Cozens, P. (2008) New Urbanism, Crime and the Suburbs: A Review of the Evidence.
Urban Policy and Research. 26(3), 1-16.

Cozens, P. (2011) Urban Planning and Environmental Criminology: Towards a New

Perspective for Safer Cities. Planning Practice and Research. 26(4), 481-508.

Cozens, P., Hillier, D. and Prescott, G. (2001) Defensible Space: Burglars and Police
Evaluate Urban Residential Design. Security Journal. 14, 43-62.

Cozens, P., Hillier, D. and Prescott, G. (2002a) Gerontological Perspectives on Crime

and Nuisance: The Elderly Critically Evaluate Housing Designs in the British City.
Journal of Aging and Social Policy. 14(2), 63-83.

Cozens, P., Hillier, D. and Prescott, G. (2002b) Criminogenic Associations and

Characteristic British Housing Designs. International Planning Studies. 7(2), 119-
136.

Cozens, P., Saville, G. and Hillier, D. (2005) Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography. Property
Management. 23, 328-356.

Cromwell, P.F and Olson, J.N. (1991) Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic
Analysis of Burglary. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

18
Crowe, T. (2000) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: Applications of
Architectural Design and Space Management Concepts. 2nd Edition, Butterworth-
Heinemann: Oxford.

Dewberry, E. (2003) Designing out Crime: Insights from Eco-Design. Security

Journal. 16, 51–62.

Donnelly, P.G. and Kimble, C. E. (1997) Community Organizing, Environmental

Change, And Neighbourhood Crime. Crime and Delinquency. 43, 493-511.

Eck, J, E. (2002) Preventing Crime at Places. In: L. W. Sherman, D, P. Farrington, B,

C. Welsh, D. Layton MacKenzie (eds.) Evidence Based Crime Prevention. New
York: Routledge.

Ekblom, P. (2011) Deconstructing CPTED...and Reconstructing it for practice,

knowledge, management and research. European Journal on Criminal Policy and
Research. 17, 7-28.

Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. (2009) Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance
and Crime Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.

Feeney, F. (1986) Robbers as Decision Makers. In: D. Cornish and R. Clarke (eds.)
The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag. 53-71.

Gabor, T. (1987) Armed Robbery: Cops, Robbers, and Victims. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.

Garland, D. (1996) Limits of the Sovereign State: Strategies of Crime Control in

Contemporary Societies. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 445-471.

Gelfand, D.M. et al. (1973) Who Reports Shoplifting? A Field-Experimental Study.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 23, 276-285.

Groff, E.R. and LaVigne, N.G. (2001) Mapping an Opportunity Surface of

Residential Burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 38(3), 257-278.

Hakim, S., Rengert, G. & Shachamurove, Y. (2001). Target Search of Burglars: A

Revised Economic Model. Papers in Regional Science. 6(4), 445–464.

Hillier, B. (2004) Can streets be made safer. Urban Design International. 9. 31-45.

Hillier, B. and Sahbaz O. (2009) Crime and Urban Design: An Evidence-based

Approach in R. Cooper, G. Evans, and C Boyko (eds.) Designing Sustainable Cities.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hillier, B. and Shu, S. (1998) Crime and Urban Layout: The Need for Evidence:
Home Office Crime Prevention College. Easingwold.

19
Hillier, B. and Shu, S. (2000) Crime And Urban Layout: The Need For Evidence. In:
S. Ballintyne, K. Pease, and V. McLaren (eds) Secure Foundations: Key Issues in
Crime Prevention, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. London: Institute of
Public Policy Research. 224-48.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random
House.

Johnson, S. and Bowers, K.J. (2010) Permeability and Burglary Risk: Are Cul-de-
Sacs Safer? Quantitative Journal of Criminology. 26(1), 89-111.

Jones, M., and Fanek, M. (1997) Crime in the urban environment, Proceedings, 1st
International Space Syntax Symposium, Vol. II, London, 25.1-25.11.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., and Steg, L. (2008) The Spreading of Disorder. Science,
322 (5908), 1681-1685.

Lasley, J. (1998) Designing Out Gang Homicides and Street Assaults. US National
Institute of Justice, Washington: DC.

Latane, B. and Darley, J.M. (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He
Help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Letkemann, P. (1973) Crime as Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Matthews, R. (1992) Regulating Street Prostitution. British Journal of Criminology.

32(1), 18-34.

Mayhew, P. (1979) Defensible Space: The Current Status of a Crime Prevention

Theory. Howard Journal. 18, 150-159.

Monchuk, L. (2011) The Way Forward in Designing Out Crime? Greater Manchester
Police Design for Security Consultancy. Safer Communities: A Journal of Practice,
Opinion, Policy and Research. 10(3), 31-40.

Montoya, L., Junger, M. and Ongena, Y. (2014) The Relation Between Residential
Property and its Surroundings and Day- and Night-Time Residential Burglary.
Environment and Behavior. 1-35. ISSN 0013-9165.

Nee, C. And Meenaghan, A. (2006) Expert Decision Making in Burglars. British

Journal of Criminology. 46, 935-949.

Newman, O. (1973) Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City.
London: Architectural Press.

Newman, O. (1995) Defensible Space: A New Physical Planning Tool for Urban
Revitalization. American Planning Association Journal. 61(2), 149-155.

20
Newman, O. (1996) Creating Defensible Space. Rutgers University, Centre for Urban
Policy Research.

Nubani, L. and Wineman, J. (2005) The Role of Space Syntax in Identifying the
Relationship Between Space and Crime. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 5th
Space Syntax Symposium on Space Syntax, Delft, Holland.

Pascoe, T. (1999) Evaluation of Secured by Design in Public Sector Housing – Final

Report. Watford: BRE.

Pease, K., and Gill, M. (2011) Direct and Indirect Costs and Benefits of Home
Security and Place Design. Leicester: Perpetuity Research and Consultancy
International Ltd.

Poyner, B. (1983) Design Against Crime: Beyond Defensible Space. London:

Butterworth.

Poyner, B. and Webb, B. (1991) Crime Free Housing. Oxford: Butterworth.

Rengert, G. and Hakim, S. (1998) Burglary in affluent communities: a planning

perspective. In: M. Felson & Pieser (eds) Reducing Crime Through Real Estate
Development and Management. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute.

Rengert, G.F. and Wasilchick, J. (2000) Suburban Burglary: A Tale of Two Suburbs –
Second Edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Reppetto, T.A. (1974) Residential Crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Rosenthal, A. (1964) Thirty-Eight Witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reynald, D. (2009) Guardianship in Action: Developing a New Tool for

Measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety. 11, 1-20.

Shu, S. (2000) Housing Layout and Crime Vulnerability. Urban Design International.
5, 177-188.

Shu, S., Huang, J. (2003) Spatial configuration and vulnerability of residential

burglary: a Case study of a city in Taiwan, in J. Hanson (Ed.), Proceedings, 4th
International Space Syntax Symposium, London.

Simon, F.H. (1971) Prediction Methods in Criminology – Including a Prediction

Study of Young Men on Probation, Home Office Research Study 7. London: Home
Office.

Skogan, W.G. (1990) Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in
American Neighbourhoods. California: University of California Press.

21
Taylor, R. (2002) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): Yes,
No, Maybe, Unknowable and All of the Above. In: R.B. Bechtel and A. Churchman
(eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Son.

Taylor, R. and Gottfredson, S.D. (1987) Environmental Design, Crime and

Prevention: An Examination of Community Dynamics. Crime and Justice: An Annual
Review of the Research. 8, 387-416.

Taylor, M. and Nee, C. (1988) The Role of Cues in Simulated Residential Burglary.
British Journal of Criminology. 238, 396-401.

Teedon, P., Reid, T., Griffiths, P., Lindsay, K., Glen, S., McFayden, A. and Cruz, P.
(2009) Secured by Design Impact Evaluation Final Report. Glasgow: Glasgow
Caledonian University.

Teedon, P., Reid, T., Griffiths, P. and McFayden, A. (2010) Evaluating Secured by
Design Door and Window Installations. Crime Prevention and Community Safety.
12(4), 246-262.

Tilley, N., Thompson, R., Farrell, G., Grove, L. and Tseloni, A. (2015) Do Burglar
Alarms Increase Burglary Risk? A Counterintuitive Finding and Possible
Explanations. Crime Prevention and Community Safety. 17, 1-19.

Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L.E., Tilley, N and Farrell, G (2014). The
Effectiveness of Burglary Security Devices. Security Journal (advance online
publication 30 June 2014; doi: 0.1057/sj.2014.30).

Van Der Voordt, T.J.M. and Van Wegen, H.B.R. (1990) Testing Building Plans for
Public Safety: Usefulness of the Delft Checklist. Netherlands Journal of Housing and
Environmental Research. 5(2), 129-154.

Vollaard, B and Ours, J. C. V. (2011) Does Regulation of Built-In Security Reduce

Crime? Evidence from a Natural Experiment. The Economic Journal. 121 (May),
485-504.

Wagner, A. E. (1997) A Study of Traffic Pattern Modifications in an Urban Crime

Prevention Program. Journal of Criminal Justice. 25, 19-30.

Wiles, P. and Costello, A. (2000) The ‘Road to Nowhere’: The Evidence for
Travelling Criminals, Home Office Research Study 207. London: Home Office.

Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1982) The Police and Neighbourhood Safety. The
Atlantic, March 1982, 29-38.

Winchester, S. and Jackson, H. (1982) Residential Burglary: The Limits of

Prevention. Home Office Research Study Number 74. London: Home Office.

White, G. (1990) Neighbourhood Permeability and Burglary Rates. Justice Quarterly

7(1), 57-67.

22
Yang, X. (2006) Exploring The Influence of Environmental Features on Residential
Burglary Using Spatial-Temporal Pattern Analysis. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of Florida. Available at: www://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0013390/yang_x.pdf.
[Accessed 17 Feb 2010].

Zavoski, R., Lapidus, G., Lerer, T., Burke, G. and Banco, L. (1999) Evaluating the
impact of a street barrier on urban crime. Injury Prevention. 5, 65-68.

i
Major roads connect cities, towns and the larger areas between them.
ii
Local roads form the urban backcloth on which residential estates are built, and they facilitate easy travel between one local
road to another. They are unlikely to be used for vehicular travel for anything other than local trips, but do connect
neighbourhoods and allow travel within and between them.
iii
Private roads are intended for use by residents alone and not for connecting places. Some of these will be culs-de-sac, some
will be through roads.
iv
The Association of Chief Police Officers has been replaced by the National Police Chiefs Council and, at the time of writing,
the ownership of SBD had not been confirmed.

23