To What Extent Do Environmental Considerations to Design Out Criminality Assist in Reducing Criminal Activity

Criminal activity is a dynamic and ever changing process that has many faces. The industrial revolution which created a huge environmental population surge from rural to urban brought with it an increasing criminality. Quetelet and Guerry in 19th century established data collection methods that were first of its kind looking at the correlation of crimes occurring and where the criminals lived. This was further developed by Henry Mayhew (1862) who looked at the ecology of crime in London. Mayhew believed the idea that there was a greater concentration of crime in rural than urban and this was changing with social views in the way the criminal law was defined and enforced, especially with police expansion concentrating themselves in fast growing industrial urban areas. These early studies would develop and increased emphasis on the design of an area on criminality and what can be done physically to deter offending. Early Studies in Chicago pioneered the vision and after the 2nd world war rebuilding effort, various political housing policies and immigration from British colonies led to a diverse social set up and a deterministic approach to crime in the UK. Environmental factors in the 1970’s magnified itself onto people’s agenda by the recorded rise in crime in inner city areas and instigated thinking on how to respond to it which at the time accepted the problem and the need to at least curtail it. Early thoughts on designing out crime were recognition of a rational offender. The rationale of defensible space and target hardening has been reported in detail due to it being embedded into political spectrums but studies have shown that altering the environment may indeed reduce criminal activity but doesn’t necessarily prevent offending. The idea that situational prevention merely causes displacement and diffusion is something hard to prove conclusively.
The early part of the 20th century large social studies based in Chicago led to the growth of 'Environmental Criminology’. The Chicago school was influential in the 1920’ and 1930’s and Mass immigration led to an unprecedented population boom and an idea of high offence area rates. Burgess (1925) and Shaw and Mackay (1942) after a huge increase in crime identified a high rate in the city centre closest to the industry. They also claimed that the amount of crime stayed constant even when the diverse make up altered. They implied people who lived in the high crime areas turned away from crime as they moved out the city centre with increased wealth and changing outlook. One conclusion was that the individual’s behaviour is the main factor determined by their environment. The idea was criticised that crimes are generally even across the classes and the lack of similarity to European cities with their work focusing only on the poorer classes and trusting the official crime figures.
Situational Crime Prevention looks at the opportunities for specific crimes and how to make them harder to commit. Jeremy Bentham in the 1980’s argued the rational choice made was based on deterrence. The rational choice theory is aimed at uncomplicated human decision making and that crime is committed for the rewards it brings. Crime prevention aims to disrupt this thinking and increase the effort it takes to commit the crime. Cornish and Clarke (1987) states that rational choice defines the place as important and offenders vary methods they used on the varying crimes they commit to achieve their goals. They thought this idea could explain why it was carried out, the choice of crime and location. They did however accept limitations on rationality such as time and the offender’s capabilities. There seems to be very little studies on the confidential crimes such as child abuse, domestic violence. Do people think these crimes as unimportant? The emphasis on Situational crime control and concentrating on just the ‘Labelling’ of the offender may be a successful ploy to satisfy the public fear but can easily accelerate community segregation and lead to further social exclusion.
The Routine Activity Theory (Cohen and Felson 1979) looked at criminal opportunities and crime patterns and identified 3 features for a crime to materialise; a motivated offender, a fitting target and absence of guardian/crime preventer. It’s proposed that if you take away any of the three factors it will disrupt crime. The effectiveness of these depends on how responsible people feel for the place. If a person owns a business or is accountable they are more likely to increase their effort than someone who doesn’t have that interest.
Lawrence Sherman (1990) worked on crime mapping and stated that crime clustered to certain locations. This led to the police ‘Hot Spot’ and the use of crime patterns to predict and react to the crime that had occurred. The advent of problem orientated policing that arose from ever increasing police demand has created an awareness to adopt an analytical approach to take community concerns seriously. The idea of how offenders come to be aware of potential targets was looked at by Brantingham and Brantingham (1991, 1993). They reported that as offenders engage in routine activities they look for opportunity and that there is an overlap between suitable targets and personal awareness. Obviously there are many factors that determine opportunity and studies have been done looking into offender’s use of space. Wiles and Costello (2000) stated that offenders travel under two miles from their home, they didn’t make the journeys specifically to offend but as a matter of course it happened over the day. Wikstrom (1995) examined Youths using public transport who were attracted to Stockholm city centres amenities legitimately created a target rich environment and one of the highest recorded crime totals in the country.
The idea of ‘defensible space- Crime Prevention by Urban Design’ by Oscar Newman (1972) cited the community’s potential to ensure their own security and control mixed with surveillance. The idea argued that those who have an interest or ‘physical stake’ will care for it, police it and should feel safer to report suspicious behaviour. This worked was linked to Jeffery (1971) – crime Prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Mayhew et al (1976) while working for the home office argued that levels of crime depend on the situation where the crime happened. There is evidence that a mix of techniques does reduce recorded crime but again this relies on the accuracy of surveys. The main issue of CPTED is that it doesn’t tackle the root of crime but reacts to past problems. This is shown by the reactionary style policing approach which at times increases the public’s fear of crime.
Clark (1983) believed that phone boxes in a public street were more likely to be damaged than if they were in busy public areas, a further example of target attractiveness and risk/reward notion against getting caught. The reverse idea of Atlas (1991) who identified ‘offensible’ space where areas became used by gangs who would seek to use it for their own criminal activities. This is also highlighted in reports of no go areas in the UK where the community have little interaction with police. ‘Favela’s of Brazil’ by Elenice De Souza and Joel Miller (2012) in which they showed open spaces were actual crime generators and in places recorded crime dropped due to the organised nature of the criminal gangs that operate. Is this a positive reduction? How much value does the daily fear the community live in compare to other communities in the world? I think it’s impossible to compare but in a richer society where the fear has created a large money making crime prevention industry; in whose interest is it to keep the fear alive? I would argue that by putting the onus on the tax payer it relieves some of the moral burden from the people who are in place to protect them and that by just making environmental alterations you will never affect serious change. The whole defensible space theory that sometimes battles with offensible space is an expensive mission and to generate suspicion and to re-enforce the ‘home fortress’ does go against the notion of ‘Big Society’ that is currently popular with government. It seems that the main targets are males and the youth who become marginalised and are also more likely to be victims. Alice Coleman (1985) revived the ideas of Newman and Jeffrey and reported that the design of an area can impact anti-social behaviour and argued that the environment determines criminality and the three main contributing design factors were anonymity, lack of surveillance and easy escape. Coleman recommended that no new social housing flats should be built, each dwelling should have its own garden and large high rise housing estates should be altered. On Lisson Green estate Coleman removing walkways led to a 50% drop in crime and the high crime Lea View Estate crime fell dramatically low and remained so for 4 years. In comparison similar estates in Wigan, crime rates stayed the same where alterations were not made. Coleman was criticised by Bottoms and Wiles (1986) who felt social and cultural factors were ignored, didn’t look at the stigma attached to some estates and the local authority involvement. Anthony Giddens (1989) felt that you need to look at the evolving society and the rise of capitalism and with people generally having more; you can’t just look at the physical environment but at people’s lives over time.
Coleman’s work has been called ‘Target Hardening’ which grew out of work by Ron Clarke and ‘Broken windows’ theory by Wilson and Kelling (1982). They proposed that if communities neglect minor decay and disorder they lead to more serious crimes which leads to fear, withdrawal and promotes avoidance. There was very little data published to support these claims but the idea was supported in the US when New York Mayor Giuliani used Zero Tolerance Policing as a measure of Target Hardening. It led to some impressive crime reductions even though it received criticism by analysts, who argued that there were several casual factors including a demographic population shift, decrease in gang rivalry and a low crime rate all over America. The Kings Cross regeneration scheme was influence by this idea with increased arrests and very little displacement reported. The broken windows idea even with strong criticism still holds power and was cited in the New British Government Policy 2011 about ‘Unchecked ASB could lead to increased disorder and fear of crime’.
As Target hardening ideas came into the 90’s it seemed a cheap blueprint to make crime difficult and avoided dealing with the underlying causes of crime. Street lighting, prevention devices and implementation of CCTV are strong Environmental altering measures to assist with surveillance and deterrence. Painter (1998) studied an area for 6 weeks before and after street lighting was introduced and saw a large reduction. Farrington D and Welsh C (2002) supported that it positively increased community cohesion, support and was an informal social control. Mayhew et al (1992) reported on the Introduction of steering lock usage in Britain and West Germany. Britain fitted them on all new cars which reduced the thefts of these vehicles but displaced it to increased theft of older vehicles. In West Germany it became mandatory to have these locks fitted to all cars. This resulted in a huge decrease of all car thefts. This highlighted British decision was state based, West Germany showed it was the potential victims responsibility to ‘target harden’ and lastly was the created business enterprise to consider ‘Target Hardening’ in production to prevent crime. CCTV in Britain was rooted in political circles as a technological solution that showed the government was doing something about crime. It’s reported that UK has an estimated 20% of the world’s CCTV but less than 1% of the world’s population (Crawford and Evans 2012). A study of CCTV installed in London Underground stations by Mayhew et al (1979) found a large decrease in robbery and thefts. Poyner (1992) indicated that he found decrease in thefts from Vehicles in the year CCTV was installed but only a small decrease in theft of Cars.

Generally displacement is a secondary factor once the primary operation is established. Reppetto (1974) discussed 6 different types of displacement. Temporal – Where offenders commit crime at different times; Tactical – Offenders change methods; Target – Offenders select different targets; Type – Offenders change crime; Geographical – Offenders move locations; Perpetrator – Arrested offenders are replaced by new. The idea that displacement can be benign was brought about by Barr and Pease (1990) who motioned that offenders replace the more serious offences with less serious types of crime that’s can be seen as socially acceptable. Other effects of situational measures go beyond the scope they were aimed at and cause an unintended diffusion of crime reduction near the original targeted area. Whereas Displacement pushes crime away from where it’s focused, diffusion increases the benefits. Poyner (1988) describes this as ‘Complete reverse’ of displacement. Sherman (1990) highlighted a ‘free bonus’ effect on police crackdowns and that levels of crime remain low for a short period after the tasking has ended. The question of crime reduction as a side effect by Matthews (1992) in Finsbury Park, London noticed a decline in prostitution offences after police intervention but also more serious crimes that would’ve been committed by these same offenders. The previous CCTV study of Mayhew et al (1979) showed reductions in other underground stations not covered by CCTV could easily have been Diffusion. Sherman’s (1990) bonus effect is a deterrent and an obvious form of diffusion. Poyner’s (1988) study on double decker buses was assisted by some positive propaganda as they only fitted two buses with CCTV. Poyner suggested that it was the information passed on to the kids and the added uncertainty of not knowing which buses had camera’s that enabled the crime reduction. A further situational prevention idea in the form of gated communities has become accepted to many and is a regular feature of social housing. Bowers et al (2004) evaluated alley gating which aimed to restrict access with the idea that offending will be reduced. They also highlighted the potential to reduce other types of offences.
Situational deterrence is the fear of apprehension; Discouragement is another form of diffusion. Using the notion of rational choice and reward, offenders may be put off committing crimes even if the risk of getting caught hasn’t changed. Pease (1991) evaluated high burglary rates of coin fed gas meters on a housing estate suggesting they be removed causing the risk to be diffused across the estate. This was linked to the study by Hill (1986) who argued that removal discouraged offenders and who couldn’t be assured to find one without greater effort. Ekblom (1988) showed anti-theft screens in London post offices also reduced robberies who didn’t have them fitted. Ekblom felt that a message had been sent to deter offenders with improved security. When the diffusion of benefits is discussed it shows the potential for spreading crime beyond what had been set out to achieve. A lack of recognition of diffusion might create experiments that have no chance to succeed just as past studies that haven’t taken it into effect may have missed vital information when their results have been reviewed. The fact that most studies only deal with street crime shows its limitations and the difficulty in combating technological issues it faces for example Internet fraud, Money laundering, identity theft, corporate theft etc.. Ultimately the lack of ‘White Collar’ policing does highlight a social divide. As we are entering a period with decreasing budgets on the police and local authority will the public get the assistance they need or will the government portray that crime is indeed falling and attempt to reduce the fear of crime and the need to invest in further crime designs?

Bibliography

- Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1991) Environmental Criminology, 2nd ed Waveland Press.
- Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1993) ‘Environment, Routine and situation :Towards a pattern theory of crime” In Williams, K Criminology 5th Edition
- Bowers, K.J., Johnson, S.D. and Pease K. (2004), Prospective Hotspotting: The nature of Crime Mapping? The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 44, pp 641-658.
- Centre for Problem Oriented Policing (2009) ‘About Us’ accessed via URL: http://www.popcenter.org/about Centre for Problem Oriented Policing (2010) URL: www.popcenter.org

- Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson (1979) Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review. Vol.44: 588-605

- Cornish D. B. and Clarke, R.V. (1987) ‘Understanding Crime Displacement: An Application Of Rational Choice Theory’ Criminology Vol.25 Number 4 pp933-47

- Elenice De Souza* and Joel Miller (2012) Does Opportunity Make the Killer? BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2012) 52, 786–807

- Jones, S. (2009) Criminology. 4th edn. Oxford. Oxford University Press

- Shaw C and Mackay H (1942) “Juvenile delinquency and urban areas, Chicago” In: Maguire, Mike and Morgan, Rod and Reiner, Robert, (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 2002.
- Sherman, L.W. (1990) ‘Hot Spots of Crime and Criminal Careers of Places’ In Eck, J. and Weisburd, D. (eds.) Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies Vol 4.

- Wiles P and Costello A (2000) “The road to nowhere” Home Office Research N0 207 In: Jones S. Criminology 4th edition.

- Clarke, R.V. (1980) “Situational” Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 20 No. 2
• Bowers, K.J., Johnson, S.D. and Hirschfield. (2004), Closing off opportunities for crime: an evaluation of alley-gating. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research (2004) 10: 285–308
• Brantingham, P. and Faust, F. (1976), A conceptual model of crime prevention, Crime and Delinquency, 22, pp. 280-296.
• Mayhew P 1979. Defensible Space: The Current Status of Crime Prevention Theory. The Howard Journal.
• Wilson J and Kelling G (1982) The Police and Neighbourhood Safety. ‘Broken Windows’. The Atlantic Monthly. Volume 3, pp28.

Bibliography: - Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1991) Environmental Criminology, 2nd ed Waveland Press. - Brantingham, P.J - Bowers, K.J., Johnson, S.D. and Pease K. (2004), Prospective Hotspotting: The nature of Crime Mapping? The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 44, pp 641-658. - Centre for Problem Oriented Policing (2009) ‘About Us’ accessed via URL: http://www.popcenter.org/about Centre for Problem Oriented Policing (2010) URL: www.popcenter.org - Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson (1979) Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review. Vol.44: 588-605 - Cornish D - Elenice De Souza* and Joel Miller (2012) Does Opportunity Make the Killer? BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2012) 52, 786–807 - Jones, S - Shaw C and Mackay H (1942) “Juvenile delinquency and urban areas, Chicago” In: Maguire, Mike and Morgan, Rod and Reiner, Robert, (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 2002. - Sherman, L.W. (1990) ‘Hot Spots of Crime and Criminal Careers of Places’ In Eck, J. and Weisburd, D. (eds.) Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies Vol 4. - Wiles P and Costello A (2000) “The road to nowhere” Home Office Research N0 207 In: Jones S. Criminology 4th edition. - Clarke, R.V. (1980) “Situational” Crime Prevention: Theory and Practice, British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 20 No. 2 • Bowers, K.J., Johnson, S.D • Brantingham, P. and Faust, F. (1976), A conceptual model of crime prevention, Crime and Delinquency, 22, pp. 280-296. • Mayhew P 1979. Defensible Space: The Current Status of Crime Prevention Theory. The Howard Journal. • Wilson J and Kelling G (1982) The Police and Neighbourhood Safety