Neighbourhood Watch: STN 1 South Yarra
Region 1 Division 2
You are here:
Home>Newsletters>March 2005
|
Home Help! |
Newsletter March, 2005 Jane Jacobs, in her book, The Death and Life of Great American
Cities (1961) argued that urban diversity and vitality were being
destroyed by urban
planners and their urban renewal strategies. She challenged the basic
tenets of urban planning of the time: that neighbourhoods should be isolated
from each other; that an empty street is safer than a crowded one; and that
the car represents progress over the pedestrian. She felt that the way cities were being
designed and built meant that the general public would be unable to develop
the social framework needed for effective self-policing. She pointed out that
the new forms of urban design broke down many of the traditional controls on
criminal behaviour, for example, the ability of residents to watch the street
and the presence of people using the street both night and day. She suggested
that the lack of "natural guardianship" in the environment promoted
crime. Jacobs developed the concept that crime flourishes when people do not
meaningfully interact with their neighbours. In "Death and Life",
Jacobs listed the three attributes needed to make a city street safe: a clear
demarcation of private and public
space; diversity of use; and a high level of pedestrian use of the
sidewalks. Strategies for the built environment CPTED strategies rely upon the
ability to influence offender decisions that precede criminal acts. Research
into criminal behaviour shows that the decision to offend, or not to offend,
is more influenced by cues to the perceived risk of being caught than by cues
to reward or ease of entry. Consistent with this research, CPTED based
strategies emphasise enhancing the perceived risk of detection and
apprehension. Built environment
implementations of CPTED seek to dissuade offenders from committing crimes by
manipulating the built environment in which those crimes proceed from, or
occur. The three most common built environment strategies are natural
surveillance, natural access control and natural territorial reinforcement. Natural surveillance and
access control strategies limit the opportunity for crime. Territorial
reinforcement promotes social control through a variety of measures. Natural surveillance Natural
surveillance limits the opportunity for crime by taking steps to increase
the perception that people can be seen. Natural surveillance occurs by
designing the placement of physical features, activities and people in such a
way as to maximise visibility and foster positive social interaction among
legitimate users of private and public space. Potential offenders feel
increased scrutiny and limitations on their escape routes. • Place windows
overlooking footpaths and car parks. • Leave window curtains
open. • Use passing vehicular
traffic as a surveillance asset. • Use the shortest,
least sight limiting fence appropriate for the situation. • Use transparent
weather vestibules at building entrances. • Natural surveillance
measures can be complemented by mechanical and organizational measures. For
example, closed-circuit television (CCTV)
cameras can be added in areas where window surveillance is unavailable. Natural access control Natural access control limits
the opportunity for crime by taking steps to clearly differentiate between
public space and private space. By selectively placing entrances and exits,
fencing, lighting and landscape to limit access or control flow, natural
access control occurs. • Use a single, clearly
identifiable, point of entry • Use structures to
divert persons to reception areas • Use low, thorny bushes
beneath ground level windows. • Eliminate design
features that provide access to roofs or upper levels • Use a locking gate
between front and backyards. • Use substantial, high,
closed fencing (for example, masonry) between a backyard and a public alley. Natural territorial reinforcement Territorial reinforcement
promotes social control through increased definition of space and improved
proprietary concern. An environment designed to clearly delineate private
space does two things. First, it creates a sense of ownership. Owners have a
vested interest and are more likely to challenge intruders or report them to
the police. Second, the sense of owned space creates an environment where
"strangers" or "intruders" stand out and are more easily
identified. By using buildings, fences, pavement, signs, lighting and landscape
to express ownership and define public, semi-public and private space,
natural territorial reinforcement occurs. Additionally, these objectives can
be achieved by assignment of space to designated users in previously
unassigned locations. • Maintained premises
and landscaping such that it communicates an alert and active presence
occupying the space. • Provide trees in
residential areas. Outdoor residential spaces with more trees are seen as
significantly more attractive, more safe, and more likely to be used than
similar spaces without trees. • Display security
system signage at access points. • Placing amenities such
as seating or refreshments in common areas in a commercial or institutional
setting helps to attract larger numbers of desired users. • Territorial reinforcement
measures make the normal user feel safe and make the potential offender aware
of a substantial risk of apprehension or scrutiny. Effectiveness CPTED is most effective when
involving environmental
designers, land managers, community action, and law enforcement. If any
of these four groups are excluded, a community CPTED strategy will be less
effective. A more accurate term for the
strategy would be crime deterrence through environmental design. Research
demonstrates that offenders can not be literally prevented from committing
crimes by using CPTED. CPTED relies upon changes to the physical environment
that will cause an offender to make certain behavioural decisions. Those
changes are crafted so as to encourage behaviour, and thus they deter rather
than conclusively "prevent" behaviour. Beyond the attraction of being
cost effective in lowering the incidence of crime, CPTED typically reduces
the overall costs of preventing crime. Retrofitting an existing environment
to meet CPTED can sometimes be costly, but when incorporated in the original
design phase of facility planning, cost of designing to CPTED principles are
often lower than traditional approaches. Adding to the attraction of CPTED is
that it lowers liability and improves the productive use of both public and
private space. Obstacles to adopting CPTED There are three primary
obstacles to the adoption of CPTED. First is a lack of knowledge
of CPTED by environmental designers, land managers, and individual community
members. For this reason, allocating substantial resources to community
educational programs are often required. The second major obstacle is
resistance to change. Many specifically resist the type of cooperative
planning that is required to use CPTED. Beyond that, sceptics reject the
research and historic precedents that support the validity of CPTED concepts. The third obstacle is the
perception that CPTED claims to be a panacea for crime that will be used to
displace other more traditional approaches rather than a small, but
important, complementary tool in deterring offender behaviour. - from Wikipedia,
the free internet encyclopaedia Internet encyclopaedia needs
local help Wikipedia is a
global community project to produce a novel kind of encyclopaedia. The goal
is to create a free, reliable encyclopaedia—indeed, the largest
encyclopaedia in history, both in terms of breadth and depth. This is an
ambitious goal, and will probably take many years to achieve. The project is managed by a
non-profit parent organization, The Wikimedia
Foundation. Thousands of people around the
world have contributed to different parts of this project, and anyone can do
so, including you. More than 1.2 million entries in 160 languages have
already been written. A central page lists all
recent changes; complete histories of all articles are kept and can be
accessed by anybody, so that changes can be reviewed and undone if necessary.
No editors exist, or rather: anybody can be an editor. To learn how to get involved
in Wikipedia check out the community
portal page. Next Meeting Acknowledgement: |
|
|
Last
modified 6 June 2005.