Editorial

Citation

Cozens, P. (2006), "Editorial", Property Management, Vol. 24 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2006.11324aaa.001

Editorial

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) asserts that “the proper design and effective use of the built environment [which] can lead to a reduction in the fear of crime and the incidence of crime, and to an improvement in the quality of life” (Crowe, 2000, p. 1). In summary, CPTED supports the self-policing potential of the community through the design and management of urban space and basically seeks to “design out crime” and “design in people”.

CPTED has emerged in recent years as a socio-physical perspective within environmental psychology, criminology and urban planning. It is subject to ongoing refinement and critical evaluation and builds on key concepts such as territoriality, surveillance, activity support and access control. A further crucial dimension concerns the effective and continuous maintenance and management of urban space (e.g. the rapid repair of vandalism) and discouraging the under-use of such space (e.g. long-term dereliction and vacancy).

Following the work of various researchers[1] specific elements of urban design became widely associated with enhancing or reducing opportunities for crime. Today, CPTED has evolved into a robust sub-division within criminology. Furthermore, Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) highly influential “Broken windows” thesis stressed the vital importance of maintaining the built environment as a statement indicating social cohesion, informal social control and consequently reducing fear of crime.

The evidence for CPTED as a crime prevention approach is increasing (Cozens et al., 2005), and research in the field of environmental psychology is supporting CPTED in terms of the perceptions of safety and resultant behavioural modifications that urban design and management can elicit (e.g. staying in or amending one’s journey as a result of fear of crime). However, developers are not generally obliged to consider such ideas. Indeed, in the UK, less than 5 per cent of new housing developments have utilised the CPTED-style initiative known as the Secured by Design (SBD) scheme – although the practice of CPTED certainly extends beyond this scheme.

In Western societies, various laws and regulations exist to protect public health and safety (including fire regulations), to encourage energy efficiency and, more recently in some, to promote disabled access. Moreover, some aspects of sustainability are beginning to be enshrined in law and many proposed developments are required to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment. The links between CPTED and sustainability have been raised (Knights et al., 2002; Cozens, 2002) and in the UK, Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is being increasingly used as a lever to ensure that the management dimension to CPTED is supported. By making crime “a material consideration”, the UK’s Crime and Disorder Act (2000) has done much to promote CPTED although it is arguable that no policy or legislative frameworks are in place to sufficiently mandate and embed CPTED within the planning and development process.

Del Carmen and Robinson (2000) have highlighted the indirect, but nonetheless crucial, role that CPTED has played in the use of environmental design to prevent the spread of tuberculosis in the USA during the period of “consumption” (early 1800s-1900s). Such ideas are broadly reflective of the public health initiatives during the corresponding period in Britain, itself a response to the cholera epidemic of the 1840s. Del Carmen and Robinson (2000) note how those with tuberculosis and those who engaged in criminal behaviour were both categorised as “undesirables” and “threats to the safety of American society”. They also argue that efforts to control this public health risk were achieved through CPTED strategies, which preceded the academic writings of those considered to be the founders of CPTED. Such measures were therefore developed and utilised with the inter-related goals of preventing the spread of tuberculosis and criminal behaviour. Research and observations at the time revealed that certain health risks were associated with aspects of urban planning and design and that modifications to the urban fabric could significantly reduce the opportunities of that “risk”.

At the time, the idea that urban development should routinely consider risks to public health, proactively at the design stage was certainly innovative. With legislative and policy reforms planning for development gradually extended to tackle potential risks to public health, including the provision of clean water supplies, sewerage, toilets and rubbish collection. Similarly, legislation and policy development have meant that in terms of risk of fire, regulations have been integrated into the planning process. Sustainability, for some commentators, is currently an issue that also needs to become a central part of this process.

Our experience of the past has demonstrated that the planning, design and management of urban space can have serious consequences for communities including risks to public health and safety and fire. Increasingly, theory, research and practice in the fields of environmental criminology and CPTED all strongly suggest that there is now sufficient evidence to argue that a consideration of the opportunities for crime that urban design can foster should be as integral to the planning and design process as issues such as public health, fire regulations, sustainability and disability access.

Parts of Canada, the USA and Australia have introduced local ordinances and development control standards and are active in ensuring that CPTED guidelines are in place. In Europe, various countries (the UK, Austria, Hungary, Norway, Belgium, Iceland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Ireland, Slovakia, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Finland, Luxembourg, Sweden, France, Malta, Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands, and Greece) are working to develop CPTED benchmark standards. However, the European Standard for the Reduction of Crime and Fear of Crime by Urban Planning and Building Design (ENV 14383-2) will not initially be obligatory. Holland and the UK have developed CPTED-style schemes but both are optional. However, on a positive note, SBD is now obligatory for all new social housing developments in Wales (UK).

Significantly, sustainability is beginning to incorporate a consideration for crime risk but most legislative and policy frameworks in Western societies do not provide mandatory support for CPTED. The need to consider the potential criminogenic impact of new developments and the role of CPTED is still predominantly an optional consideration for planners and developers in most Western societies.

Furthermore, in the USA and Australia there has been an increase in the number of premises liability cases where property owners and/or proprietors are found culpable on the grounds of failing to take “reasonable” measures to ensure the security of those who utilise their facilities/properties/establishments. CPTED professionals are often called as expert witnesses in such cases to provide evidence on what is accepted as being “reasonable” physical design measures.

Arguably, one of the greatest challenges to developing truly sustainable urban design is to ensure that CPTED ideas are considered in the initial planning and development proposal as a legal requirement, which is guided and supported by clear policy frameworks. One approach being pursued in Western Australia (WA) is to embed CPTED within the planning policy framework at every level to ensure the planning and development process considers CPTED principles in the decision making process. A Designing Out Crime Strategy is currently under development in WA and refinement where political support is providing added impetus (Thorn and Cozens, 2005). Time alone will tell whether such an approach is a viable option to underpin CPTED and ensure that the risk of crime is a consideration in the planning process for modifications to existing urban spaces and for all new developments.

For a review of CPTED see Cozens et al. (2001).

Paul Cozens