CPTED LITERATURE

"A Review and Current Status of Crime Prevention through

Environmental Design (CPTED)" by Paul Cozens and Terence Love

Overview of CPTED
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a strategy that
aims to reduce crime by designing and managing urban spaces to
minimize opportunities for criminal behaviour. Its foundational premise is
that the physical environment can influence behaviour, reduce the fear of
crime, and enhance the quality of life. CPTED has become a globally
recognized crime prevention strategy, with governments across Europe,
North America, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Asia adopting its
principles.

Historical Origins of CPTED

CPTED’s roots can be traced to early human settlements that used environmental
design for protection (e.g., fortresses, walls, and moats). However, the modern
conceptualization of CPTED emerged in the 20th century:
 Jane Jacobs (1961): Her book The Death and Life of Great American
Cities argued that safety and security are fundamental to a well-
functioning city, emphasizing "eyes on the street" as crucial for urban
safety.
 C. Ray Jeffery (1971): Coined the term CPTED and highlighted that crime
prevention should consider biological and environmental determinants, not
just social factors.
 Oscar Newman (1972): Developed the idea of "Defensible Space," which
operationalized Jacobs’ theories by focusing on how urban design can
promote surveillance, territoriality, and community control.

Core Concepts of CPTED

The first-generation CPTED revolves around four primary principles:
 Territoriality: The design of spaces to create a sense of ownership,
encouraging legitimate users to take responsibility for maintaining safety.
 Surveillance: Maximizing visibility through design features like windows,
street layout, and lighting to increase the risk of offenders being seen.
 Image and Milieu: Ensuring that spaces are well-maintained to signal
that the area is controlled and cared for, which discourages crime.
 Access Control: Restricting access to spaces through physical barriers
(e.g., gates, fences) to reduce criminal opportunities.
These principles aim to create a built environment that allows residents to act
as natural guardians, discouraging offenders through increased risks of
detection.
 Second-Generation CPTED
Criticism of the first-generation CPTED pointed out its heavy reliance on physical
design, neglecting social factors that also contribute to crime prevention. Second-
generation CPTED emerged in the 1990s to incorporate community-based
strategies, focusing on:
 Social Cohesion: Promoting mutual respect and cooperation among
community members, recognizing that cohesive communities are more
likely to self-police and prevent crime.
 Community Connectivity: Encouraging partnerships between residents
and government or non-government organizations to strengthen crime
prevention efforts.
 Community Culture: Fostering a shared sense of place and community
pride through cultural events, festivals, and social activities.
 Threshold Capacity: Managing the density and scale of urban spaces to
avoid tipping points where crime becomes uncontrollable, such as
overcrowded or transient neighbourhoods.
Second-generation CPTED thus emphasizes building social networks and
community engagement alongside physical interventions to ensure long-term
crime prevention.

Evidence for CPTED’s Effectiveness

The article reviews a range of studies assessing the effectiveness of CPTED. Early
studies, such as Richard Gardiner's research in Hartford (1978), demonstrated a
clear reduction in crime following CPTED interventions. Other notable case
studies include the Five Oaks project in Ohio, where a 26% reduction in crime was
observed after implementing CPTED strategies.
 Meta-reviews and studies often find that CPTED can significantly reduce
crime, especially when multiple CPTED strategies are employed together.
For instance, Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000) reviewed 28 studies on CPTED
interventions and found reductions in robbery rates ranging from 30% to
84%. In the UK, Secured by Design (SBD) initiatives consistently showed
that CPTED-certified properties have lower crime rates.
 However, the article also acknowledges limitations in CPTED research,
such as inconsistent methodologies and difficulties in measuring long-term
impacts or accounting for factors beyond environmental design (e.g.,
socioeconomic conditions).

Criticisms and Challenges

While CPTED is generally viewed as effective, several criticisms are highlighted:
 Crime Displacement: One of the major concerns is that CPTED might not
reduce crime but merely displace it to neighbouring areas. There are six
 types of displacement (e.g., spatial, temporal, tactical), which CPTED
evaluations must consider ensuring interventions are genuinely reducing
crime.
 Oversimplification: Critics argue that CPTED is sometimes implemented
as a “one-size-fits-all” solution, where design elements are applied without
proper contextual analysis. This can lead to suboptimal outcomes or even
increases in crime.
 Environmental Determinism: Early CPTED approaches were accused of
environmental determinism - overemphasizing the built environment as
the sole factor influencing crime, without considering the complex social
and economic variables.
 Fortress Mentality: Over-reliance on target hardening (e.g., fences,
security barriers) can result in a "fortress mentality," where residents
become isolated behind physical defences, reducing natural surveillance
and social interaction.

Future Directions and Refinements

The authors suggest several areas where CPTED can improve:
 Geographical Juxtaposition: This largely forgotten concept refers to how
neighbouring land uses and environmental contexts can influence crime.
For example, proximity to crime-generating areas (e.g., bars, and transit
hubs) can affect the safety of adjacent spaces. Including this dimension in
CPTED planning could enhance its effectiveness.
 Integration with Social Programs: Second-generation CPTED
emphasizes the need to combine physical and social strategies.
Encouraging community participation, fostering collective efficacy, and
promoting social inclusion are key to creating resilient neighbourhoods.
 Holistic and Contextual Approach: Rather than a checklist of design
features, CPTED should be viewed as a dynamic, process-driven approach.
Risk assessment, local conditions, and ongoing evaluation should guide the
application of CPTED principles, avoiding the rigid application of design
standards.

Conclusion
CPTED remains a vital strategy for crime prevention, with a growing body of
evidence supporting its effectiveness. However, its future success will depend
on addressing the criticisms of oversimplification and incorporating a broader,
more holistic approach that includes social factors. The evolution from first- to
second-generation CPTED shows that blending environmental design with
community engagement and social cohesion can lead to safer and more
sustainable urban environments.

Key Points to Remember for a Test:

 Definition: CPTED uses environmental design to reduce crime
opportunities.
 Historical Figures: Jane Jacobs (eyes on the street), Ray Jeffery (CPTED
founder), Oscar Newman (Defensible Space).
 First-Generation Concepts: Territoriality, surveillance, image
management, access control.
 Second-Generation Concepts: Social cohesion, community culture,
connectivity, threshold capacity.
 Criticisms: Crime displacement, oversimplification, environmental
determinism, fortress mentality.
 Effective Implementation: Requires integrating physical design with
social programs, considering local context, and ongoing evaluation.

TEXT 2:
Florida Safe School Design Guidelines (2018)

Introduction and Fundamental Ideas

The guidelines are based on the premise that the design and management
of a school's physical environment can significantly help deter criminal
behaviour.
Crime prevention theories such as Defensible Space, Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED), Environmental Criminology, and
Situational Crime Prevention play a central role in shaping these
guidelines.
The primary audience includes architects, facility managers, planners, and
other stakeholders involved in school safety.

Research Approach
The guidelines were developed based on research from schools across the
United States and the world, and include site visits, surveys, and input
from professionals managing school facilities and safety.

Organizational Structure of the Guidelines

The guidelines are structured progressively, from broad "Site Design"
concerns down to more specific "Systems and Equipment."
They are also keyed to the crime prevention principles in Section 423, 7(h)
of the 2001 Florida Building Code, which include:
o Natural Access Control

o Natural Surveillance

o Territorial Integrity
 Link Between Design and Management
A crucial point is the connection between school design and management
practices. For example, design elements such as windows that facilitate
surveillance can be undermined by improper management (e.g., blocking
them with posters or blinds).

Key Areas of Focus

Site Design
1. Site Perimeter
 Natural Access Control: Clearly establish property lines, secure
perimeters with controlled access points, and utilize fencing that
limits unauthorized access.
 Natural Surveillance: Ensure clear sightlines by avoiding
obstructions with fencing and signage, and locate entry points in
visible areas.
 Territorial Integrity: Maintain school property to create a sense of
ownership, and promote community engagement on school grounds.

2. Vehicular Routes and Parking Areas

 Access Control: Limit the number of entrances, especially during
low-use times, and ensure emergency vehicle access.
 Surveillance: Parking areas should be close to the school building
for visibility, and sufficient lighting should be provided.
 Management: Ensure parking areas are supervised, especially
during peak times.

3. Exterior Pedestrian Routes

 Access Control: Create clearly marked sidewalks and entry points,
particularly for after-hours use.
 Surveillance: Avoid hiding places and maintain visibility from inside
the building.

4. Recreational Areas
  Access Control: Secure and limit access points, particularly in
joint-use facilities.
 Surveillance: Place recreational areas in visible locations and use
transparent fencing.

Building Design
1. Building Organization
The layout of the building should allow natural surveillance both school
grounds and within the building. Compact designs or connected buildings help
with access control.

2. Points of Entry
Minimize the number of unmonitored entries and place the main entry near
administrative areas. Glazing at entrances helps with visibility.

3. Doors and Windows

 Doors: Use tamper-resistant doors and locks and incorporate view
panels or sidelights for visibility.
 Windows: Windows should enhance surveillance but be designed to
prevent unauthorized access, particularly after hours.

Interior Spaces
1. Lobbies and Reception Areas
Design these areas with a clear view of entrances and access control points,
enhancing surveillance.
2. Classrooms
Classrooms should have windows to corridors or exterior spaces for natural
surveillance and be equipped with secure doors that can lock from the inside.

Systems & Equipment

1. HVAC/Mechanical Equipment
These systems must be secured and maintained to avoid interference with
crime prevention efforts, such as controlling access through ventilation
systems.
2. Fire Control and Alarms
 Fire alarms and control systems must be designed with access control and
surveillance in mind, preventing tampering or misuse.

Management and Maintenance

Management strategies are critical in maintaining the effectiveness of crime
prevention designs. For example, broken windows or graffiti send signals that
areas are neglected, potentially attracting crime.

Surveillance Systems
Surveillance strategies can be natural (through design), mechanical (CCTV), or
organized (security personnel). Each type plays a role in monitoring and
deterring criminal activities.

Key Crime Prevention Theories

 Defensible Space (Oscar Newman): The idea that the design of spaces
can help users control their environment and deter crime.
 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): Focuses
on how environmental design can reduce crime opportunities.
 Situational Crime Prevention: Targets specific crimes through design
and management to reduce the risk or opportunity for those crimes.

Conclusion
The Florida Safe School Design Guidelines emphasize the crucial role of design
in enhancing safety, reducing vandalism, and promoting a sense of territorial
integrity in schools. By focusing on access control, surveillance, and
maintenance, these guidelines aim to create secure educational environments
where criminal behaviour is deterred through thoughtful, integrated planning.

“Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (2010) Handbook”

Introduction to CPTED

 Definition: CPTED is an approach that reduces crime by designing

the physical environment to encourage positive behavior and
minimize opportunities for criminal acts. It considers physical, social
surroundings, and human interactions.

 Goals:

o Reduces crime and fear of crime

o Encourages social interaction

 o Improves the quality of life in communities

The Five Principles of CPTED

These principles, when applied together, enhance the safety and livability of a
community.

1. Natural Surveillance:

o Ensures visibility of spaces to deter criminal behaviour ("to see and

be seen").

o Achieved through proper lighting, low or see-through fencing, and

clear sightlines.

o Design elements should eliminate blind spots and areas of

concealment for criminals.

2. Natural Access Control:

o Controls and guides who enters and exits a space.

o Achieved through clearly marked entrances/exits, well-lit areas,

gates, and hostile vegetation.

o Security mechanisms such as locks, fences, and surveillance

systems enhance control.

3. Territorial Reinforcement:

o Establishes ownership of space using landscaping, fences, signs, and

other markers.

o Clear boundaries between public, semi-public, semi-private, and

private areas help deter illegitimate users.

4. Activity Support:

o Places activities in visible and active areas to enhance surveillance

naturally.

o Encourages legitimate use of spaces like parks, community rooms,

and play areas, making them less attractive to criminals.

5. Maintenance:

o Well-maintained spaces show that someone cares about the area,

discouraging vandalism and criminal activities.
 o Regular upkeep prevents spaces from falling into neglect, which
aligns with the Broken Window Theory (deterioration invites more
crime).

The Broken Window Theory

 This theory, developed by James Wilson and George Kelling in 1982, posits
that visible signs of disorder (e.g., broken windows, graffiti) encourage
further vandalism and criminal activity.

 By maintaining order and addressing small crimes, communities prevent

larger, more serious offenses.

CPTED Program Requirements

 Basic: Focuses on landscaping (e.g., 2 ft/6 ft rule – shrubs trimmed to 2

feet and trees trimmed to 6 feet).

 Intermediate: Adds security features like deadbolt locks and

window/sliding door locks.

 Advanced: Requires uniform lighting, solid core doors, and visible building
numbers.

Security Mechanisms

 Security features include deadbolts with 1-inch throws, strike plates with 3-
inch screws, secondary locks for windows, and sliding doors.

 Advanced features include solid core doors, security hinges, and tamper-
resistant screws.

Lighting for Safety

 Lighting is critical for visibility, helping to prevent crime by increasing

surveillance opportunities.

 Proper lighting should:

o Be energy-efficient and tamper-resistant.

o Illuminate key areas such as pathways, entrances, parking

structures, and common areas.
  LED lighting is preferred for its energy efficiency, uniform brightness, and
ability to reduce shadows

 Lighting Metrics:

o Foot-candle (FC): A unit of illumination used to measure light

levels.

o Different risk areas require varying levels of foot-candle lighting

(e.g., 4-5 FC for high-risk areas like gated community entries).

Landscaping and Vegetation

 Landscaping affects visibility and access control. Proper maintenance

ensures surveillance and safety.

 Recommended plants should not obstruct visibility, and hostile vegetation

(e.g., cacti, thorny bushes) can be used to deter intruders.

 Follow the 2’/6’ rule for plant maintenance to reduce hiding places.

Lighting and Cost Analysis

 LED lighting is highly recommended for its longevity, energy efficiency,

and minimal maintenance.

 A comparison of different lighting types shows LEDs outperform traditional

options like High-Pressure Sodium and Metal Halide in terms of efficiency
and safety.

“Design, crime and the built environment. Handbook of Crime

Prevention and Community Safety”

Overview of CPTED

 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a

strategy aimed at reducing crime by designing and managing the physical
environment to minimize criminal opportunities.

 It is grounded in Opportunity Theories (e.g., Routine Activity Theory,

Rational Choice Theory, and Crime Pattern Theory), which suggest that
crime happens when there’s a vulnerable target, a motivated offender, and
no capable guardian.

 CPTED seeks to increase surveillance, improve guardianship, reduce

anonymity, and control access to spaces, thus discouraging criminal
behaviour.
 Main Principles of CPTED

 Surveillance: Maximizing visibility of spaces to reduce crime by

increasing the chances of offenders being observed.

o Research shows that offenders prefer unobserved targets. Poor

surveillance leads to higher crime risk, while properties overlooked
by neighbors have reduced crime.

 Territoriality and Defensible Space: Oscar Newman’s idea that clear

ownership of space (through signs or symbolic boundaries) helps residents
take control of their environment.

o Symbolic boundaries (like changes in road texture) signal that a

space is private, deterring potential offenders.

 Limiting Through Movement: Reducing the number of pathways and

connections in an area to limit offender access and escape routes.

o Studies found that developments with low connectivity (e.g., cul-de-

sacs) experience lower crime rates compared to areas with high
permeability (many connecting roads or footpaths).

 Physical Security: Incorporating strong physical barriers (e.g., secure

doors, windows, locks) to harden targets.

o Research reveals properties with better security experience fewer

break-ins, and mandatory security regulations (like in the
Netherlands) reduce burglary.

 Management and Maintenance (Image): Well-maintained

environments, free from vandalism or litter, signal care and oversight,
which discourages crime.

o Broken Windows Theory: Untended areas suggest that further

offenses won’t be noticed, increasing the likelihood of serious crime.

Key Theories Influencing CPTED

 Routine Activity Theory: Crime occurs when a suitable target meets a

motivated offender in the absence of a capable guardian.

 Rational Choice Theory: Offenders weigh risks and rewards before

committing crimes.

 Crime Pattern Theory: Offenders make decisions based on familiar

environments and choose targets they encounter in their daily routines.
 Effectiveness of CPTED

 Research supports the effectiveness of CPTED principles in reducing crime,

particularly residential burglaries and vehicle-related crimes.

 The combination of these principles, especially when integrated early in

planning stages, has been shown to significantly lower crime rates.

 Programs like Secured by Design (SBD) in the UK and the Police Label
Secure Housing in the Netherlands have been developed based on
CPTED principles, and they have demonstrated measurable success in
reducing crime over time.

Limitations and Criticisms

 Long-term approach: CPTED’s benefits may take years to become

evident as they rely on preventing potential crime in new
developments. Thus, it’s not a "quick fix."

 Simplicity: Critics argue that CPTED focuses too much on situational

crime prevention, neglecting the social causes of crime like poverty and
inequality.

 Responsibility on Victims: Some claim CPTED unfairly shifts the burden

of crime prevention onto victims by emphasizing physical security and
environmental design.

Case Studies and Research Findings

 Research on burglar perspectives shows they avoid areas with strong

surveillance, symbolic territorial markers, and limited escape
routes.

 Studies found a higher crime rate in areas with high through movement,
while cul-de-sacs showed lower burglary rates, particularly sinuous
(curved) cul-de-sacs.

 Properties with clear visual connections to other houses and streets,

such as front doors facing the street, experienced less crime.

“Toward a gendered Second Generation CPTED for preventing woman

abuse in rural communities”

Introduction
 Purpose: The paper proposes a framework for prevention strategies to
enhance rural women's security, focusing on intimate partner violence.

 Urban vs. Rural Crime: Challenges the belief that crime is mainly urban,
highlighting significant violence issues in rural areas.

Misconceptions About Rural Crime

 Media and Academia: Rural areas are often falsely viewed as crime-free,
influenced by historical theories linking crime to urban settings.

 Social Disorganization Theory: Applied mainly to urban contexts,

leading to the false assumption that rural cohesion results in lower crime.

Research on Rural Woman Abuse

 Rural Crime Rates: Studies since the 1990s show crime rates, especially
intimate partner violence, can be as high or higher in rural areas than
urban ones.

 Gender and Violence: Research often neglects gender issues, with rural
women feeling unsafe and unsupported in abusive situations.

 Separation/Domestic Violence: The period of separation from an abuser

is notably dangerous for women.

Factors Contributing to Violence Against Rural Women

 Rural Patriarchy: Embedded cultural norms justify violence against

women, reinforcing patriarchal structures.

 Peer Support for Abusers: Abusive men often receive validation from
male peers, normalizing violence.

Ecological Perspective on Violence

 Social Ecology of Violence: Heise’s framework shows that local norms,

influenced by patriarchy, shape community responses to violence.

 Macrosystem Influences: Broader cultural values affect how violence

against women is addressed.

Collective Efficacy
 Definitions and Variants: Collective efficacy in rural settings can
sometimes support violence due to non-intervention norms, where
community members refrain from intervening in domestic matters.

Cultural and Community Factors

 Norms and Values: Contradictory norms complicate the safety of women,

with some collective efficacy forms potentially worsening crime rates.

Solutions and Framework

 Second Generation CPTED: Modifies Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design principles to target violence against women.

 Strategies for Prevention: Proposes four gender-sensitive strategies

addressing rural women's unique security concerns.

Defining Rural Communities

 Diversity and Characteristics: Rural areas are diverse, marked by close

interpersonal relationships, but influenced by external cultural shifts.

Understanding CPTED

 Definition and Purpose: CPTED aims to alter environments to reduce

crime opportunities, initially focusing on urban public crimes.

 Limitations: The first generation of CPTED overlooked private crimes like

violence against women.

Transition to Second Generation CPTED

 Emergence: Second Generation CPTED incorporates community

engagement and collective efficacy as critical elements.

Key Strategies for Reducing Violence Against Women

1. Community Culture: Foster a shared identity through events that raise

awareness of abuse.

2. Connectivity and Pro-Feminist Masculinity: Combat isolation by

establishing women’s centers and engaging supportive men in the
community.
3. Community Threshold: Improve safety through informal social control
and community cohesion.

4. Social Cohesion: Enhance conflict resolution and communication skills in

schools to foster healthier relationships.

Conclusions and Implications for Security

 Two Levels of Security: Direct actions by law enforcement and broader

cultural initiatives are essential.

 Institutionalization of Feminist Interests: Integrating feminist

perspectives into local policies is vital for long-term change.

 Collective Efficacy: Strengthening community ties can significantly

reduce violence against women.
 Introduction and Purpose of the Manual

 Project Background: The manual was developed as part of an EU-funded

project (2013-2015) involving Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland. Its
aim is to improve urban design, planning, and crime prevention methods.

 Main Objectives:

o Develop existing CPTED methods in partner countries.

o Educate police officers and raise their professional knowledge.

o Create a network to improve cooperation.

o Produce learning materials and integrate CPTED into police training.

 Target Group: Primarily police officers involved in spatial planning to

ensure a safer environment.

General Principles of CPTED

 Origins: Introduced by C. Ray Jeffery (1971) and developed further by

Oscar Newman ("Defensible Space").

o Key Ideas: Cities can be designed to prevent crime by controlling

the environment. The design should promote safety by managing
space ownership and increasing human interaction.

 Second Generation CPTED: Focuses on social and behavioural aspects,

as developed by Gregory Saville and Jerry Cleveland.

 Six Core Principles:

1. Territoriality: Enhancing a sense of ownership over a space,

deterring criminals.

2. Surveillance: Promoting natural and formal surveillance through

open spaces and visibility.

3. Access Control: Restricting unauthorized access through physical

barriers or subtle design elements.

4. Image/Maintenance: Maintaining cleanliness and order to reduce

crime and fear (e.g., "Broken Windows Theory").

5. Activity Support: Promoting legitimate use of space to increase

surveillance and reduce crime.
 6. Target Hardening: Adding physical security features (locks,
fences) to reduce crime opportunities.

Role of Police in CPTED

 Preventive Role: Traditionally, police focus on apprehending criminals,

but in CPTED, their role shifts towards crime prevention by influencing
environmental design.

 Police Label Programs:

o Secured by Design (UK) and the Dutch Police Label are

examples of successful police programs that award secure housing
labels based on CPTED principles, reducing burglary and crime.

 Collaboration: Police work alongside architects and planners, using

checklists and design guidelines to influence the construction and
modification of urban spaces.

Analyzing the Built Environment

 Urban Processes: CPTED applies in various urban development processes

like densification, deconcentration, and reconcentration, as well as
managing specific environments like parks, residential areas, and public
transport.

 Tools and Methods: The manual suggests both desktop research

(statistical analysis, GIS mapping) and fieldwork (site observations,
interviews) to study crime-prone areas.

Practical Applications of CPTED in Planning

 Participation in Planning: Police officers should be integrated into

planning processes, ensuring their insights on crime prevention influence
decisions. They should review plans and suggest safety measures early in
the planning stages.

 Making Proposals: Police can propose changes in design related to

lighting, surveillance, access, and community activities to improve safety.

 Case Studies:

o Bijlmermeer (Netherlands): Initial design failures led to increased

crime and subsequent redesign using CPTED principles.
 o Muotiala (Finland): A neighborhood designed with CPTED
principles led to a safer, more community-focused area.

Reading and Understanding Planning Documents

 Planning Documents: Police need to understand different types of

planning documents, such as city plans and zoning laws, to make informed
safety suggestions.

 CPTED Integration: The manual provides checklists and strategies for

embedding CPTED into planning documents, ensuring crime prevention
becomes a key focus of urban development.

Landscape Design and Crime Prevention

 Key Focus Areas:

o Ensure clear sightlines by trimming vegetation and avoiding visual

obstructions.

o Use landscaping to define public and private spaces clearly,

discouraging unwanted access.

o Employ deterrent plants (e.g., thorny shrubs) near windows and

fences to discourage intruders.

 Maintenance: Regular upkeep of public spaces is critical to prevent

deterioration, which can increase crime.

Problem-Specific Strategies

 The manual includes matrices and strategies for different urban

environments, offering specific measures based on common crime-related
issues in schools, parks, or residential areas.

Conclusion

The CPTED manual is a practical guide aimed at police officers and urban
planners to integrate crime prevention into the design and planning process. It
emphasizes a collaborative, proactive approach to making cities safer through
environmental design, focusing on both physical structures and social
behaviours.
 Objective
Crime Prevention through Urban Design and Planning (CP-UDP) aims to reduce
crime and insecurity by integrating protective features into urban design and
fostering positive social behaviors. This is part of the Cutting Crime Impact (CCI)
project, funded by the EU, which supports law enforcement and authorities in
crime prevention using evidence-based and sustainable approaches.

Key Concepts

1. CP-UDP Foundations:

o Builds on theories like the Chicago School of Sociology's ecological

model, focusing on the link between social disorganization and
crime.

o Uses principles from Crime Prevention Through Environmental

Design (CPTED), emphasizing the reduction of crime opportunities
and fostering community control over local spaces.

2. Design Principles:

o Defensible Space (Oscar Newman): Physical layouts should

empower residents to monitor and protect their environment.

o Situational Crime Prevention: Focuses on identifying elements that

facilitate crime and proposing interventions to mitigate them.

o Environmental Criminology: Looks at how spatial and temporal

factors influence criminal behavior.

o Design Against Crime: Educates designers about incorporating

security measures into their work.

CP-UDP Implementation

 UK Case Study (Greater Manchester):

o Secured by Design: A program initiated in 1989, focusing on secure

architectural designs.

o Architectural Liaison Officers (ALO): Employed to assess building

plans for security compliance and advise on safety.
 o Crime Impact Statement (CIS): Introduced to incorporate crime
prevention considerations early in the design phase.

 France Case Study:

o ESSP (Public Safety and Security Study): Legislation requires

developers to assess a project’s impact on crime and public safety,
resulting in consultancies focused on crime trends and fear of crime.

European Standards

 CEN 14383 Series: A set of European standards addressing CP-UDP for

various environments, from residential areas to public transportation.

Challenges & Success

 CP-UDP implementation requires a multidisciplinary approach, with

collaboration among law enforcement, local authorities, architects, and
planners.

 Crime displacement (where criminals move to new locations) occurs less

frequently than assumed. CP-UDP measures often reduce crime
significantly, particularly property crimes like car theft and burglaries.

Key Takeaways

1. Collaboration: Effective CP-UDP requires cooperation across different

sectors.

2. Evidence-Based: The approach draws from urban sociology, environmental

design, and crime prevention theory.

3. Successes: CP-UDP has been successful in reducing crime, with strong

results in Europe.

Introduction to CPTED

CPTED is a multidisciplinary approach focused on reducing crime and improving

community safety through urban planning and environmental design. This
program, involving partners from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland, was
established to refine existing urban design methods and introduce new strategies
for crime prevention. The program aligns with EU policies, such as the Council's
Conclusion 8094/11, emphasizing the integration of CPTED principles into police
training and community planning.

CPTED Principles

CPTED strategies are rooted in influencing the behaviour of potential offenders

through design. The six primary principles of CPTED are:

 Territoriality: Establishing ownership of spaces to encourage care and

responsibility among residents and deter outsiders.

 Surveillance: Ensuring visibility through both formal (police) and informal

(community) surveillance, including the use of CCTV.

 Access Control: Designing spaces to restrict movement, guiding people

away from areas where crime is more likely.

 Target Hardening: Enhancing security through physical barriers like

locks, fences, and alarms.

 Image and Maintenance: Maintaining spaces to avoid the "broken

windows theory" where neglected areas invite more crime.

 Facilitating Positive Use: Creating environments that encourage

legitimate use and social interaction, reducing opportunities for criminal
activity.

Site Visits and Practical Implementation

Tampere, Finland (Muotiala Area):

 Muotiala was Finland’s first CPTED neighborhood.

 It focused on creating a safe environment through lighting, social

interaction, and community involvement.

 Residents reported higher safety, lower crime, and active use of public
spaces.

Bijlmermeer, Netherlands:

 Bijlmermeer, a high-rise neighbourhood in Amsterdam, originally faced

high crime rates due to poor design.

 The area was redesigned following CPTED principles, improving safety and
reducing crime by integrating Police Label Secure Housing guidelines.

Alkmaar, Netherlands:
  Known for the successful implementation of the Dutch Police Label Secure
Housing, Alkmaar serves as a model for using design to reduce crime.
CPTED principles here included enhancing social surveillance, improving
lighting, and maintaining public spaces.

Case Studies by Country

Each participating country applied CPTED principles to specific urban

environments, addressing local crime issues:

Finland (Pukinmäki):

 A densely populated area with high crime rates, primarily theft and
vandalism.

 Recommendations focused on improving lighting, redesigning parking

areas for better surveillance, and addressing graffiti.

Lithuania (Verkiai Regional Park):

 A popular recreational area with issues related to public disorder, alcohol

consumption, and environmental damage.

 Solutions included installing signage, barriers to control vehicle access,

and video surveillance.

Latvia (Iļģuciems, Riga):

 A residential area with crime hot spots, particularly around a tram station.

 Proposals included improving lighting, adding CCTV cameras, and

renovating playgrounds.

Estonia (Narva Park):

 A vandalized public park that attracted crime due to its neglected state.

 Recommendations included restoring the park, increasing police patrols,

and engaging local youth in positive activities.

Recommendations and Future Outlook

  Cross-National Collaboration: Partner countries were encouraged to
share best practices and refine CPTED methods.

 Police Education: CPTED principles should be integrated into police

training programs to enhance local crime prevention efforts.

 Sustainability: CPTED projects highlighted the importance of engaging

communities and maintaining public spaces to ensure long-term success.

The six main CPTED principles

First generation:

Territoriality Access control

- All about taking (a sense ) of ownership - Physical guidance of
people going
Landscaping, fencing, gates, etc. in and out of spaces
Public, semi-public, semi-private, entrances/exits,
fencing,
private spaces landscaping

Surveillance Image &

maintenance
- Natural = things seen by residents - Keep free from litter,
graffiti,
- Formal = policy/security vandalism
- Semi-formal = postman etc. clean & well-
maintained

Facilitating positive use Target hardening

- Increasing the likelihood that - Increasing effort/risk
reducing
legitimate users will make use of reward
a space keeping offenders out
passive = parks, etc. physical barriers
active = (sport) events, etc.