Design the environment to reduce both the incidence and fear of crime

Crime + Safety [DRAFT LECTURE OUTLINE]
Introduction
People feel they face a variety of threats in the urban environment – crime, terrorism, fast-moving vehicles, air pollution, water contamination, etc.
Many ‘natural threats’ are now adequately managed (on the whole)
‘Human threats’ appear to be on the increase.
It is important to note that considerations of safety are related to but distinct from actual crime statistics
Perceived safety and real safety are not the same
Perceived Safety
Aspects of perceived safety
Visual access (prospect/refuge)
Evidence of human impact (human sign)
Familiarity
Design factors that make people feel unsafe
Poor lighting
Isolation
Lack of sightlines (not visible to others) (“surveillance”)
No access to help (human sign)
Hiding and entrapment spots (including trees and bushes) (prospect refuge)
Inadequate security
Other design factors requiring consideration
Maintenance
Surrounding land use (affects isolation and sightlines)
Movement predictors (the ability for an assailant to predict where a victim will be in a short period of time)
Increase in Crime
Three factors important in the increase of crime
Anonymity (people did not know their neighbors)
Lack of surveillance (a lack of engagement in the community and community effort to oversee public spaces)
Availability of escape routes for criminals
Solutions?
Fortress approach – “gated community” approach
Panoptic approach – police state with explicit control and monitoring of all spaces (“mall” approach)
Management or regulatory approach – public spaces with explicit rules and regulations and employment of city employees to enforce behavior (the “dog park” approach)
Animation or ‘peopling’ approach – creating a “people” presence, people generators, activities, a welcoming ambience, accessibility and inclusion (the Project for Public Spaces [PPS] approach)
Fortress approach – “gated community” approach
Panoptic approach – police state with explicit control and monitoring of all spaces (“mall” approach)
Management or regulatory approach – public spaces with explicit rules and regulations and employment of city employees to enforce behavior (the “dog park” approach)
Animation or ‘peopling’ approach – creating a “people” presence, people generators, activities, a welcoming ambience, accessibility and inclusion (the Project for Public Spaces [PPS] approach)
Theory #1: Crime prevention
There are two main approaches to crime prevention:
Dispositional – removing or reducing an individual’s motivation to commit crimes – through education, moral guidance, improved housing and other economic and social development programs, and sanctions and penalties
and Situational – improving the environment to make the performance of a crime more difficult in a particular place.
Performance of a crime more difficult or less rewarding
= reducing opportunities
= increasing risk
= increasing effort
= reducing reward
= removing motivation
= removing excuses
Theory #2: Eyes on the street (“surveillance”)
Safe spaces have “surveillance” – people are watching activity
Not police or LEOs
Social controls and standards of behavior create safety in public spaces
Users become active participants in the ‘drama of civilization vs barbarism’
Requires sense of ownership
Theory #3: Territoriality
Provide a territorial distinction between ‘private’ and ‘public’ space
Signal use or ownership by laying claim
Create a protected zone for friends, family and children
Communicate who should and should not be in the space
• Defense strategies (prevention, reaction, and social boundaries) are employed in response to infringements
• Infringements include:
– invasion [unwarranted use]
– violation [not respecting the rules of those in control of a space], and
– contamination [rendered not useable for its function]
• Males are often more territorial than females
Result of creating, maintaining or highlighting boundaries
Use cues such as props, signs or markers
Exerting control to reduce threat from others (such as strangers in a park setting) by reinforcing proximate spaces is termed “bulwarking”
Theory #4: Defensible space
Bring an environment under the control of its residents using:
• real and symbolic barriers
• strongly defined areas of influence
• improved opportunities for community surveillance
Theory #5: Broken window theory
An ordered, clean, and maintained environment sends the signal that the area is monitored and that criminal behavior is not tolerated.
A broken window symbolizes the community’s defenselessness and vulnerability.
Social signals can encourage (or discourage) crime.
Broken windows (etc.) signal a lack of monitoring.
Theory #6: CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design)
Design the environment to reduce both the incidence and fear of crime
Reduce the support the setting provides for criminal behavior
Theory #7: The Safe Communities Approach
Concentrate on the needs of those who are most vulnerable
Women
Children
Older people
People with disabilities
Lower income people
Design Solutions
1. Remove isolation and increase surveillance (“eyes on the street”)
2. Hierarchy of spaces (territoriality)
3. Awareness of surroundings
4. Visibility to others
5. Ability to get help
6. Lighting
7. Sightlines and visibility
8. Remove movement predictors
9. Remove entrapment spots
10. Maintenance (broken window theory)
11. Provide design cues for safety
Design Principles
Design Principle #1: People are lazy. Use it.
People will take the shortest route to a given destination.
People will take the easiest route to a given destination.
Usually the flattest with the least obstructions.
Land form can be used to influence movement.
Use elevation changes to create visual and physical barriers.
Use landform to speed up or slow down movement.
Design Principle #2: People are predictable. Use it.
Easy vs. hard
Flat vs. sloped
Narrow vs. wide
Lit vs. unlit
Hard vs. soft pavement
Densely vs. lightly vegetated
Views vs. no views
Signs vs. no signs
Design Principle #3: Help people be smart(er).
Make turns at 90* whenever possible – use a minimum of 45* for pedestrian routes to minimize confusion.
Use design tools to orient the user – right hand turns upon entry, signs, views, nodes etc.
Give the user information about the route, purpose and facilities – not only by signage, but also through visual cues – surface, size, views etc.
Use both words and maps to offer alternate routes, and warn about isolated areas.
Design Principle #4: Create activity
• (more people = more safety sometimes)
• (less people = more safety sometimes)
Design Principle #5: Encourage a sense of ownership
Marking: The amount of marking necessary increases as space becomes more public.
Site features indicate where territory begins and influence the behavior in those spaces.
The effectiveness of marking depends on four conditions:
Outsiders must read the marker and understand the message
Users must control their site
Space must force visitors to communicate their intentions
Users must have the ability to defend and control the site
Public territory is limited by the regulations and social norms of society and is occupied only temporarily.
Signs in these spaces must be “explicit, clear, legible and standardized” to communicate standards of conduct.
———————————————————/
Crime + Safety: Vocabulary
Access control: Restriction of access to a target to make it easier to control and to enhance the predictability of movement in a place.
Ambience (ambiance): The atmosphere of a place.
Animation: Being full of life; getting many people involved.
Anonymity: Lack of features that make someone or something identifiable.
Assailant: A person who attacks or victimizes another.
Barbarism: Absent of culture or civility.
Bulwarking: Claiming of a space through building a symbolic or real wall, barrier or edge.
Contamination: Rendered not useable for its function; making something impure.
Dispositional approach: Removing or reducing an individual’s motivation to commit crimes – through education, moral guidance, improved housing and other economic and social development programs, and sanctions and penalties.
Entrapment: Being caught involuntarily somewhere.
Explicit: Leaving no room for confusion.
Fortress: Something not susceptible to outside forces.
Hierarchy (hierarchical): System of organization wherein something is ranked above (or below) other items.
Implicit: Unspoken or implied; not communicated clearly.
Incidence: The occurrence, rate, or frequency of something.
Infringement: Limiting, undermining, or breaking the terms of an agreement.
Invasion: Unwarranted use; intruding on an area unwanted.
Isolation: Being on your own, distant or far from others.
Landform: A feature of the earth’s surface often involving either positive or negative topographic change, e.g., a hill, mountain, swale, ditch, valley, etc.
Marking: Separate or delineate an area; often includes visible signs or props.
Movement predictors: The ability to predict where a person will be in the future.
Obstacles: Something that blocks, prevents, or hinders progress.
Panoptic: Seeing everything from one viewpoint; police oversight.
Predict (predictable): To say or anticipate something happening in the future.
Proximate (proximal/proximity): Close in time or space; immediate; closest to a given point.
Regulatory: To control or direct with rules.
Seclusion: Being private and away from other people.
Sightlines: An invisible line from someone’s eyes to what they are seeing.
Situational approach: Improving the environment to make the performance of a crime more difficult in a particular place.
Standards of conduct: Set of rules or codes that outline norms, responsibilities or proper practices of an individual, group, or society.
Surveillance: Close observation of something or someone.
Target hardening: Turning something into a more difficult or less attractive target; strengthening the security of a place or building.
Territoriality (territorial; territory): Sense of formalized or informal ownership of a space; indicated through the use of boundaries, signs, props or bulwarking.
Violation: Not respecting the rules of others; a breach of a written or unwritten agreement to behave in a particular manner.
Visual access: Being able to see into a space.
———————————————-/
the discussion you have to write dear writer is :
Crime, Safety and People Who are Experiencing Homelessness
Crime prevention can be fairly straightforward when we are discussing property crimes such as theft or personal crimes such as rape. However, the homeless (people who are experiencing homelessness) have become criminalized in many areas of our communities. One of society’s responses to the use of marginal public spaces by the homeless to meet their basic needs (especially for housing) is hostile architecture. Hostile architecture predominantly uses design (e.g., concrete spikes and metal teeth) to prevent people from sitting or laying down in public or semi-public places (such as parks, airports, or outdoor commercial seating areas). Proponents say hostile architecture is necessary to “maintain order, ensure safety, and curb unwanted behavior” (Hu, 2019).
Look up “hostile architecture” online to view examples of what this looks like in practice.
QUESTION A: Hostile architecture reduces everyone’s ability to use public and semi-public spaces. Why do we accept hostile architecture in our surroundings without complaint?
QUESTION B: In territoriality theory (discussed in class), spaces are “mine” (private), “yours/theirs” (private), and “ours” (public). When it comes to people experiencing homelessness, even spaces that are “ours” seem to be “not theirs” (they don’t belong to the homeless). For example, a bus stop is a public space – it is a space we understand that we are free to use and share with other people. However, often people get upset when there is a person experiencing homelessness sitting at the bus stop, because somehow it is “not theirs.” Why do we feel this way? What can we do about it?

Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Client Reviews
4.9
Sitejabber
4.6
Trustpilot
4.8
Our Guarantees
100% Confidentiality
Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
Original Writing
We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
Timely Delivery
No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
Money Back
If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00
Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.