Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER 3 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)
“The proper design and effective use of the build environment can lead to a reduction in the fear of crime and to an improvement in the quality of life”
INTRODUCTION TO THE CPTED
Wortley and Mazerolle (2011:8) agree that the birth of the modern environmental perspective in criminology can be dated quite precisely to 1971/72 when in the space of a year C Ray Jeffrey’s and Oscar Newman’s texts [on CPTED] were published.
“CPTED is essentially an evolving and ‘living’ body of knowledge ‘both informing its practise on the ground and in turn learning from it” (Queensland Government, 2007:3). At the heart of this research is the mission to find that specific criminological theory and to apply its methodology in a crime prevention model that would be best practise for the Rosslyn industry and to ensure sustainability within the industry community.
What is evident from the previous criminological theoretical assumptions is that one theory alone will not suffice. A multifunctional and multidisciplinary theory is required, one which encapsulates all the environmental criminology theories demonstrated in Chapter 2, and provides applied criminological approaches for industry related crime prevention requirements. In the researcher’s opinion, CPTED meets these requirements. The following section will demonstrate the key principles on which CPTED is based; the precise triads which this research is searching for, and on which an applied crime prevention model for the industry can be built.
Throughout this chapter the evolutionary process comprised of the different growth stages or generations of CPTED, as it developed over the past 50 years and still is developing, will be explained. City of Sydney (2004:4) in the introduction to its CPTED Guide for the City of Sydney Council Workers stated that CPTED is a situational crime prevention approach, which can reduce the fear of crime by manipulating the physical build environment.
Maynard (City of Sydney, 2004:4) argued that “criminal behaviour is heightened by isolation, concealment and anonymity and that an unlawful act is likely to be committed where few witnesses are present and where the chance of being identified is minimal.” Laufer and Adler (2013:429), citing Clarke (1995) and Crowe (1991) added that: “While CPTED generally involves changing the environment to reduce the opportunity for crime, it is aimed at other outcomes including reducing the fear of crime, increasing the aesthetic quality of an environment, and increasing the quality of life for law abiding citizens, especially by reducing the propensity of the physical environment to support criminal behaviour.” Laufer and Adler (2013:429), citing Clarke (1995:2) and Taylor and Harrell (1996:1) furthermore stated that: “CPTED focuses on the settings in which crimes occur and on techniques for reducing vulnerability of the settings, because its central premise is that crime can be facilitated or inhibited by features of the physical environment.”
The challenge in defining CPTED
In general there is a limited understanding of CPTED’s holistic applications in the applied environment like the Rosslyn industry. And it is this limited understanding that encourages opportunists to introduce modified versions of the original model and restricting its successful application in the industry. This research will show that CPTED is already the complete package/framework which does not require ‘new’ add-ons or modifications. Instead the continuous applied expansion of the notion of crime prevention as part of its make-up must be encouraged, the add-ins.
CPTED is clearly a preventative approach, and as such, it is conceptually and practically different from the reactive law enforcement models of reducing crime in the criminal justice system that make use of the police, courts and correctional services. Originally CPTED applications only concentrated on changing the physical environment to reduce criminal opportunities; however, it has since evolved and aims to achieve more outcomes such as improving the aesthetic appearance of a neighbourhood or the quality of life of citizens (Clarke 1995 and Crowe, 1991 as cited in Parliament of Victoria. 2013:17).
Initially CPTED was made popular and became well known because of its unique concept which focuses solely on the build, external or physical environment, and its practical tangible crime prevention method. However, it did not take into account the motivations or the psychology of the offender and of the victim. This identified a flaw in the approach that became a key criticism of some academics, including Robinson (1999:3), who argued that:
Most of the theoretical CPTED literature drifts away from the basic premise that crime prevention involves both the psychobiological aspects of human nature and the role of the external physical environment in human behaviour…The idea that CPTED only applies to the external physical environment is limited. To be more effective, CPTED should be applied both to external and internal environments and to the environments of the place and the offender respectively.
Laufer and Adler (2013:456) concur that CPTED should include both the internal environment of the offender and the external environment of the place, which is interdisciplinary in nature. Interestingly it was originally designed as such. The CPTED thought process will be discussed in this chapter.
Adhering to original concepts
Jeffery (1977:45), the originator of the CPTED approach, advocated a model of behaviour in which variable physical environments and the behaviour of individual members of the general public have reciprocal influences on one another. He then a behavioural model aimed at predicting the effects of modifying both the external environment and the psyche environment of individual offenders. Jeffery (1977:45-46) proposed that an interdisciplinary approach was needed in the area of crime prevention that was linked to the realisation that no one discipline (or theory) could do it alone. He subsequently utilised as an interdisciplinary approach based on disciplines encapsulating criminal law, sociology, psychology, administration of justice, criminology and penology. Jeffery went even further and also drew applications from system analysis, decision theory, environmentalism, behaviourism, and crime control models. He encouraged crime prevention strategies aimed at changes to the physical environment and increased citizen involvement and pro-active policing. Jeffery contended that the way to prevent crime was to design the ‘total environment’ to reduce opportunities for crime. Jeffery ardently advocated that CPTED is an environmental approach to behaviour.
It must be noted that in his endeavour to develop a CPTED model, aimed at modifying both the external environment and the internal environment of the offender, Jeffery included both the external environment of the physical environment and the internal ‘psyche’ environment of the offender. However, most recent crime prevention programmes, based particularly upon notions of social control and social surveillance (defensible space), ignore crucial differences, such as; genetic and brain differences between individual offenders, which Jeffery deems core to the CPTED approach (Jeffery, 1996:5-9).
The basic assumption of the CPTED approach is that the response of the individual organism to the physical environment is a product of the brain. The brain in turn is a product of genetics and the environment. The environment never influences behaviour directly, it only influences through the brain. Any model of crime prevention must include both the brain and the physical environment (Jeffery and Zahm, 1993:330; Jeffery, 1996:4).
There are two critical elements to crime prevention through environmental design: the place where the crime occurs and the person who commits the crime. Thus, Jeffery (1990:418) asserts that we can successfully prevent crime by altering the organism and/or the external environment because the criminal behaviour and the environment are intertwined. This, according to Jeffery, defines the scope of the external and internal environment of CPTED.
The practical evolution of CPTED
However, the reality is that Jeffery’s CPTED model has unfortunately and/or for practical reasons developed into a more general notion of physical crime prevention as mentioned in Maynard’s introduction (City of Sydney, 2004:4).The theoretical development of Jeffery’s ideas has been ignored by the exponents of crime prevention, partly because his later research focused on the biological aspects of human behaviour and their implications for crime prevention. This must also be put into the general context of Criminology because the criminology field dismissed biological factors in the 90’s as being irrelevant for understanding human behaviour. Biology is also ignored in most Criminology textbooks (Laufer and Adler, 2013:455).
Therefore, Jeffery (1977:45) stated that criminology has developed in total isolation from psychology, biology, urban planning and architecture because criminologists have been blind to the potential beneficial interaction with these fields. Jeffery hoped that this unfortunate notion will emerge as a guiding beacon, or rather a warning light, for academic criminologists and crime prevention policy-makers to steer away from. If not, crime prevention through environmental design programmes (as proposed by Jeffery) will continue to show short-lived results, owing to their narrow focus on external environmental factors only.
Unfortunately this uncertainty of being ‘true- half- or not- CPTED’ has become a bone of contention that still prevails in the industry. Jeffery and Zahm (1993:330,331) are of the opinion that the term ‘crime prevention’ will be a more suitable concept, more accurate, and more descriptive than Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Robinson (1996:18-19) agrees with this term as it could change the current perceptions of CPTED that only applies to defensible space and target hardening to include modifying buildings and other external environments to reduce crime risks and threats. Thus CPTED is continuously ‘redefined’ to suite any given project.
CPTED as a disciplinary approach
The researcher observed that these defensible spaces and situational crime prevention approaches are both rooted in the theoretical traditions of social control, rational choice, opportunity and routine activity theories which became even more celebrated than Jeffery’s CPTED model (Laufer and Adler, 2013:457). But, as this research demonstrated in Chapter 2, these approaches are effectively environmental criminology approaches seeding to and from the CPTED model. As the science of criminology is not a popularity contest it must rather be seen from the perspective that Jeffery’s original CPTED model has shown its capacity to evolve: It can accommodate a more general notion of physical crime prevention. Thus implying a multidisciplinary construct rather than acclaiming that ‘new’ approaches are the new crime prevention solution for all.
Disciplines and their ensuing institutionalisation have powerful effects on what can be asked and investigated, and what can be known and be made known. The younger the discipline, the more transparent its definition becomes, and the older it is, the more it is taken for granted. Disciplines reflect a division of labour; subdivisions in science; research and a separation of issues; subjects; material and culture (science and humanities); arts v/s humanities; the social sciences; medical; technical; brain and body, etc. This reflects an interdisciplinary subject field that will challenge predominant knowledge structures by advocating a mixture of alternative methods and research strategies, which will blend and mix sociological and biological approaches and question clear-cut boundaries between social and biology aspects. The applied importance of such a transversal-multi-, inter and trans- disciplinarily approach lies in its openness towards all other disciplines and inter disciplines and the further development of knowledge platforms. “I would like to keep the term “inter-disciplinarity” as part of the toolbox that makes it possible to specify different modes of working transversally across disciplines independent of epistemological stance” (Buikema, Griffin and Lykke, 2011: 140-168).
In view of this, research on crime prevention has a long tradition of posing new questions about old issues and in challenging established norms and presuppositions. The classic questions remain: Who or what is the universalised object of research? What kind of assumptions about crime prevention are at play in the field? Is the method biased in some way towards establishing a generic CPTED or stereotype biological approach?
This research questions the underlying norms within CPTED to prevent it from falling into a fatalistic disciplinary enhancement trap. It questions whether it is dependent on biology, or dependent on utilising disciplines which will result in providing the applied truth – the truth which underwrites practical variables such as cost, time and need? The answer to this question lies in determining in the role biology could and should play in this discipline, and then in finding the reasons for its absence in the knowledge production in this respective disciplinary approach.
The answers to these questions made it clear that in CPTED the presence of biology has not been acknowledged at all. In fact such an unbending disciplinary enhancement of CPTED is a trap that must be removed by broadening perspectives, incorporating multi-inter-trans disciplinary disciplines and eliminating bias where possible (Buikema, Griffin and Lykke, 2011: 140-168).
The truth is CPTED has over time evolved into a fully fledged MIT-disciplinary approach incorporating all the criminological approaches mentioned in Chapter 2, and the recent CPTED derivatives mentioned in this chapter. In fact, true to a MIT trans-border approach; it can research any concept that may uncover and resolve a crime prevention related problem, making it a custom made application for this research.
Professor Paul Ekblom of the Designing Out Crime Research Centre at Central Saint Martin’s College of Art and Design (University of Arts London) argues that there needs to be an in depth developed suite of CPTED definitions, as such an approach would allow the application of CPTED to become richer, more subtle, updated, practical, relevant and theoretically sharp (Ekblom 2011:7). Ekblom requests this to include the core components such as natural surveillance, target hardening and the multi-disciplinary sources such as planning, design, risk management and criminology (Ekblom 2011:8). The quintessence of this research is to establish a criminological approach which will demonstrate that criminology is a sound applied discipline with the capacity to advance the multidisciplinary approach of CPTED, which can operate in a Multi- Inter -Trans disciplinary way to mitigate any crime prevention requirement in any environment, in this instance the Rosslyn industry.
Bachman and Schutt (2014:31) support this approach in their argument that “social scientists, such as criminologists, who connect their work to theories in their discipline, can generate better ideas of what to look for in a study and develop conclusions with more implications for other research.” They further stated that building and evaluating a theory, such as in this environmental criminological research and more specific CPTED is one of the most important objectives of a social science, like Criminology, because these theories/theoretical constructs describe what is important to look at, to understand, explain, predict, and to do something about crime (Bachman and Schutt, 2014:31). “Furthermore, as we shall see, just as theory guides research, research findings also influence the development of theory” (Bachman and Schutt, 2014:33). Thus CPTED as a multidisciplinary construct with applied Multi-, Inter- and Trans- disciplinary applications or designs that focuses on the internal and external environment, can successfully be used in the process of designing crime out on all levels.
This portrays an extensive and comprehensive scope for any crime prevention mandate, namely to apply a multi-, inter- and trans- disciplinary approach to pro-actively mitigate criminal occurrences, be it physical, psychological, social, or biological, etc. However, before being able to design such a crime prevention plan for the Rosslyn environment, the most relevant definitions and applications of CPTED will be defined in this chapter. It will introduce and demonstrate all of its most prevalent guises and/or approaches and applied relevancies from which to construct a Crime Prevention Intervention Model (CPIM) for Rosslyn and to influence the development of the CPTED theory. These guises, approaches, applications and all of the most prevalent sub-sections will be analysed and discussed. A standard template (Table 3.1) a ‘SUITE’ for CPTED, allowing for direct comparison, will be used throughout to summarise core CPTED approaches both individually and collectively, through which CPTED can be approached and from where CPTED can steer the ‘correct/proper’ applied action to mitigate crime.
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CPTED
The model of C. R. Jeffery
Jeffery (1977:45) advocated a model of behaviour in which variable physical environments and the behaviour of individual members of the general public have reciprocal influences on one another. After which Jeffery (1977:45) developed a behavioural model aimed at predicting the effects of modifying both the external environment and the psyche environment of individual offenders. Jeffery (1977:45-proposed that an interdisciplinary approach was needed in the area of crime prevention that was linked to the realisation that no one discipline (or theory) could do it alone. He thus developed an interdisciplinary approach, based on disciplines encapsulating criminal law, sociology, psychology, administration of justice, criminology and penology. Jeffery went even further and also drew applications from system analysis, decision theory, environmentalism, behaviourism, and crime control models. He encouraged crime prevention strategies aimed at changes to the physical environment. He also increased citizen involvement and pro-active policing. He contended that the way to prevent crime was to design the ‘total environment’ in order to reduce opportunities for crime – clearly advocating that CPTED is an environmental approach to behaviour.
It must be noted that in his endeavour to develop a CPTED model aimed at modifying both the external environment and the internal environment of the offender, Jeffery included both the external environment of the physical environment and the internal ‘psyche’ environment of the offender. However, most recent crime prevention programmes, based particularly upon notions of social control and social surveillance (defensible space), ignore crucial differences such as genetic and brain differences between individual offenders, which he deemed core to the CPTED approach (Jeffery, 1996:5; 9). In the CPTED approach the assumption is that the environment never influences behaviour directly, only the brain or the mindset influences behaviour. Any model of crime prevention must therefore include both the brain (mindset) and the physical environment (Jeffery and Zahm, 1993:330; Jeffery, 1996:4). There are thus two critical elements to crime prevention through environmental design: the place where the crime occurs and the person who commits the crime. Jeffery (1990:418) asserts that crime can successfully be prevented if the organism and/or the external environment can be altered because criminal behaviour and the environment are intertwined. This, according to Jeffery, defines the scope of the external and internal environment of CPTED.
Unfortunately the theoretical development of Jeffery’s ideas has generally been ignored by the exponents of crime prevention, partly because in his later research he focused on the biological aspects of human behaviour and their implications for crime prevention. According Jeffery (1975:11) criminology developed in total isolation from psychology, biology, urban planning and architecture because criminologists were blind to the potential beneficial interaction with these fields. Even Laufer and Adler (2013:455) stated that in the 90’s biology was deemed unimportant for understanding human behaviour in the criminology field.
It was hoped that this unfortunate notion will emerge as a guiding beacon or rather a warning light for academic criminologists and crime prevention policy-makers, to steer away from. Otherwise, crime prevention through environmental design programmes, will continue to show short-lived results owing to their narrow focus on only external environmental factors. In view of this Jeffery and Zahm (1993:330,331) are of the opinion that the term ‘crime prevention’ would be a more suitable concept and that it is more accurate and descriptive than CPTED. Robinson (1996:18-19) agrees with this view based on a person’s reluctance to use the term CPTED for anything other than defensible space, target hardening as well as the modification of buildings and other external environments to reduce crime risks and threats.
This research uncovered many such notions that CPTED was perhaps something else and may even need a name change. It has also become clear in this research that defensible space and situational crime prevention approaches are both rooted in the theoretical traditions of social control and rational choice, however, it became more celebrated than Jeffery’s CPTED model. But, from the perspective of the researcher it does not matter at all. It demonstrates that Jeffery’s original CPTED model is evolving into accommodating a more general notion of physical crime prevention. Thus the CPTED (Criminological) MIT approach does address all such fields where needed.
However, this research has already shown that biology is just one of the factors that are important to the CPTED MIT approach, but in the context of this research not seen as to be applicable within practicality constraints. CPTED is endeavoured, as applied in the crime prevention model designed for Rosslyn, to be valid and as reliable as is expected without devaluing Jeffery’s requirements, whilst in this case omitting biology or the brain from the applied crime prevention perspective. However, this omitting action must be stated as the task is to recognise and promote CPTED for what it initially was designed for namely; a full MIT problem-solving discipline.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 A CRIMINOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND THE PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS FOR THE ROSSLYN INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT IN TSHWANE, GAUTENG, SOUTH AFRICA
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
1.2 BRIEF ORIENTATION
1.3 THE RATIONALE
1.4 MULTIPLE RESEARCH FIELDS
1.5 LACK OF RESEARCH
1.6 RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH TOPIC TO SOCIETY AND TO CRIMINOLOGY
1.7 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD OF STUDY
1.8 PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD
1.9 PURPOSE STATEMENT
1.10 THE RESEARCH QUESTION
1.11 PRIMARY GOALS, SECONDARY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
1.12 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.13 THE PREFERRED MIX PARADIGM EXPLANATION
1.14 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.15 DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES
1.16 THE PILOT STUDY
1.17 THE LITERATURE REVIEW
1.18 MIXED APPROACH DATA ANALYSIS
1.19 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF DATA
1.21 AN OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS
CHAPTER 2 CRIMINOLOGY THEORIES SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME PREVENTION
2.2 THE GOAL: DESIGNING A CRIME PREVENTION INTERVENTION MODEL
2.3 CRIME PREVENTION DEFINED
2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY
2.5 SITUATIONAL CRIMINOLOGY
CHAPTER 3 CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED)
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE CPTED
3.2 A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CPTED
3.3 LATER LIMITATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF FIRST-GENERATION CPTED
3.4 MAIN CONCERNS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RELEVANCE OF CPTED
3.5 AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE ON CPTED
3.6 THE EVOLVEMENT OF CPTED TO SECOND-GENERATION AND BEYOND
3.7 CPTED DEFINED TRIADS STATED BY CPTED EXPONENTS
3.8 THE INCORRECT INTERPRETATIONS OF CPTED AND THE ENSUING CHALLENGES
CHAPTER 4 SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY
4.1 THE REASON FOR GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY CRITERIA
4.2 THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE IMPLICATIONS
4.3 MEMBER STATUS
4.4 CRIME AS DEFINED IN SCS
4.5 SCS AND ROSSLYN
4.6 EXPECTED C-TPAT SECURITY CRITERIA
4.7 SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY APPLICATION
4.8 POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS
4.9 SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY: A CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
CHAPTER 5 THE EXTRAPOLATION AND DESIGN OF AN APPLIED CRIMINOLOGICAL INTERVENTION APPROACH AND THE DESIGN OF A RISK ANALYSIS TOOL
5.2 APPLIED CPTED METHODOLOGY
5.3 RISK ANALYSIS TOOL FOR ROSSLYN INDUSTRY
CHAPTER 6 ROSSLYN INDUSTRY NEEDS SURVEY AND RISK ANALYSIS
6. RESEARCH FIELD – THREE
6.2 THE DATA SOURCING TOOL USED AND ITS WORKINGS … 244
6.3 THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM THE CRA
6.4 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRA IN ROSSLYN INDUSTRY
6.5 GEOMETRY OF ROSSLYN
6.6 ROSSLYN DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE CULTURE OF BUSINESS
6.7 RATING AND REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC SERVICES REQUIRED BY BUSINESSES IN ROSSLYN THAT ALSO IMPACT ON THE CRIME SITUATION
6.8 WORKING HOURS AND SHIFTS IN ROSSLYN
6.9 PUBLIC TRANSPORT
6.10 LAW ENFORCEMENT
6.11 THE CRIME STATUS AND SECURITY CAPACITY IN ROSSLYN INDUSTRIES
6.12 RISK ANALYSIS OF ROSSLYN
6.13 CRIME PREVENTION IN ROSSLYN
6.15 EXPORTING AND SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY
6.16 CONCLUSION AND ESSENTIAL PSYCOLOGICAL STRUCTURE
CHAPTER 7 DEMONSTRATING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CPIM FOR THE ROSSLYN INDUSTRY
7.2 SECTION ONE OF THE CPIM: THE CRA
7.3 SECTION TWO: THE CPTED SUITE
7.4 SECTION THREE: THE RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE CRA AND THE CPTED SUITE
7.5 THE CONCLUSION OF THE CPIM PROCESS
7.6 SECTION FOUR: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CPTED CPIM
7.7 THE ROSSLYN EXAMPLE OF THE MICRO CPTED CPIM ROLL OUT
7.8 THE FINAL IMPLEMENTATION. STEP FIVE: THE MACRO MATURITY
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY, CONFIRMATION OF GOALS, OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS, VALUE OF RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION
8.2 SHORT SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH
8.3 CONFIRMATION AND OUTCOMES OF THE RESEARCH GOALS
8.4 EDUCATIONAL CAPACITY AND SKILLS TRANSFER
8.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CPIM FOR ROSSLYN INDUSTRY
8.6 ADDED VALUE OF THE RESEARCH
8.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT