Sustainability via Security: A New Look

Can burglary prevention be low-carbon and effective? Investigating the environmental performance of burglary prevention measures

“…Cozens (2007), for example, highlighted an explicit need to integrate crime issues within sustainability frameworks. Also, Armitage and Gamman (2009) highlighted the importance of ensuring that any steps forward for the green agenda, such as minimising carbon emissions, do not present a step back for the crime agenda (and vice versa). We have shown that sustainability can be considered alongside security choices and that win-win measures (in terms of security and low-carbon) can be chosen to minimise impacts whilst not compromising safety.…”

“…As part of Pease's (2009) study to estimate the carbon cost of crime and its implications, it was concluded that further improvement in designing out crime from environments was needed for crime reduction to take its place in the greening of social policy (Page 4). Armitage et al (2008) assessed the conflicts and synergies between SBD accreditation (ensuring that new homes/developments implement CPTED principles and design out crime where possible) and the UK's Code for Sustainable Homes 1 (a national standard for the construction and design of new homes). Encouragingly, the study did not identify any features of sustainable design that would prevent a development from achieving the SBD accreditation and equally, no features of SBD security were identified which would make it difficult to achieve a high rating on the Code for Sustainable Homes.…”

A Review of the Effectiveness of Crime Prevention by Design Approaches towards Sustainable Development

“…There is a common misunderstanding of sustainability as 'green', while it needs to be highlighted that the key point towards sustainability must always emphasize on social, environmental and economic sustainability at the same time (Armitage & Gamman, 2009). There have been limited empirical studies focusing on crime as a dimension of sustainability (Coaffee & Bosher, 2008;Cozens, 2002Cozens, , 2008Du Plessis, 1999) but there are significant opportunities for such 'sustainable urbanism' to be ordinary in the future (Coaffee & Bosher, 2008).…”

“…Moreover, in a study about 'Reconciling Security with Sustainability', Armitage and Monchuk (2009) indicated that there are no sustainable design features which makes it difficult in achieving SBD applications. Saville (2009) in his work entitled 'SafeGrowth: Moving Forward in Neighbourhood Development' emphasized on the issues faced in maintaining crime prevention features in the long run and indicated that the key of SafeGrowth refers to the shift with respect to a new style of user centred prevention (Armitage & Gamman, 2009). Saville (2009) further concludes that reducing crime and enhancing community involvement are effective and sustainable aspects for developing and redeveloping urban environment for years to come.…”

Walking with Park: Exploring the ‘reframing’ and integration of CPTED principles in neighbourhood regeneration in Seoul, South Korea

“…Whilst those concerned with vivifying public space seek permeability that enables the public realm to be understood as 'a place where strangers meet' (Sennett, 2010) where 'eyes on street' and 'social capital' (Jacobs, 1961) can help to prevent crime. Certainly, the evidence for permeability over defensibility is mixed leading some critics to make the case for 'secure permeability' (Armitage and Gamman, 2009) linked to public(s) access to and engagement in positive social activities that constitute what in CPTED parlance is understood as 'activity support' -a designed provision within a space that promotes desirable use of the space, and in doing so deters undesirable use of the space.…”