Crime and the design of residential property – exploring the perceptions of planning professionals, burglars and other users

Abstract

The first paper, entitled “Crime and the design of residential property: exploring the theoretical background” (Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 2), has argued that “perceptions” and the “image” of housing designs remain a largely untested avenue of investigation in the design‐effects‐crime debate. Presents and discusses exploratory research into the perception of crime/deviancy, fear of crime and “defensible space”, in relation to a range of characteristic UK housing designs. This investigation concerns the perceptions of planning professionals, convicted burglars and other users and provides both qualitative and quantitative analysis of results from a series of interviews which presented slide representations of terraced, semi‐detached and detached housing designs in addition to low‐rise/walk‐up flats and high‐rise flats. Where possible, two contrasting versions of the same design were presented to probe the influence of “image” in the perception of crime and “defensible space”. The results from this exploratory investigation underpin Newman’s theory of “defensible space” in that a “hierarchy of place” appears to exist with regard to housing designs. However, the “image” of each design is perceived to be a significant contributing factor in relation to the criminogenic capacity of each design presented. Wilson and Kelling’s “Broken Windows” theory is also supported by these research findings.

Is CPTED Useful to Guide the Inventory of Safety in Parks? A Study Case in Stockholm, Sweden

“…Despite having been around since the early 1970s (Jeffery, 1971;Newman, 1972), CPTED has been primarily applied to housing developments and neighborhoods in both urban and rural areas (Armitage, 2000;Atlas, 2008;Clarke, 1989;Cozens et al, 2001;DeKeseredy et al, 2009), commercial properties and shopping malls (Clarke, 1989;Schneider & Kitchen, 2002), and transportation systems (Ceccato, recent development occurred with the introduction of what may be called "third-generation CPTED." The principles of the third generation rely on the potential of technology solutions to improve safety while adopting a green approach: "Future cities need a symbiotic and synergistic relationship with the global natural ecology" (UNICRI, 2012, p. 54).…”

The Relationship of CPTED and Fear of Crime in Gated and Non-Gated Residential

“…Previous research demonstrates the relationships between elements of CPTED with fear of crime and crime itself such as Blobaum & Hunecke (2005), and Schneider & Kitchen (2007) on the relationships between surveillance and fear of crime, territoriality and fear of crime and crime itself (Aldrin, 1999;Newman, 1972) and maintenance with fear of crime (Cozens, Hillier, & Prescott, 2001). However, research relating all the CPTED elements with fear of crime is limited.…”

“…Studies relation on CPTED (Aldrin, 1999;Blobaum & Hunecke, 2005;Chang, 2011;Cozens, Hillier et al, 2001;Hedayati, 2009;Minnery & Lim, 2005;Newman, 1972;Perkins et al, 1992;Schneider & Kitchen, 2007) focuses on CPTED practices rather than taking into consideration the respondents' perceptions on CPTED. Moreover, studies that examine the perception of CPTED and its relationship with CPTED practices and fear of crime are still rare.…”

Theoretical framework for public housing environmental performance evaluation using occupants’ experience in developing countries

“…Hence, environmental Performance evaluation whether for residential, educational, commercial or an office can be carried out based on users/occupants satisfaction (Ibem et al, 2013)., experience (Brown et al, 2010), perception (Cozens, Hillier & Prescott, 2001) etc. As such, measurement models or constructs such as tangible environmental satisfaction and intangible environmental satisfaction can be identified as independent latent constructs for dependent latent construct of environmental satisfaction.…”