Crime Prevention through Environmental Design: Discourses of Risk, Social Control, and a Neo-liberal Context

Abstract

This article explores the means by which crime-related risks are discursively framed by practitioners and supporters of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). It will argue that crime-related risks are framed in three interrelated ways: first, as forms of foreseeable danger; second, as depoliticized potentialities; and third, as potentialities that require complete responsibilization. It is argued that these discursive practices constitute the means by which practitioners legitimate their area of professional expertise while at the same time providing them with an opportunity to exercise pastoral control over their client(s). Furthermore, it is argued that these frames demonstrate how "risk" has become an important discourse through which neo-liberal governmentalities (Foucault 1991) with respect to crime control are actualized.

CPTED and Workplace Violence in Jordanian Public Hospitals

“…4;2015 344 address the following study hypothesis: Jordanian hospitals do not use the CPTED components of natural surveillance, natural access control, territorial reinforcement, or management & maintenance. This study is consistent with previous studies that agree that implementing the various components of the CPTED approach can reduce crime and WPV (Travis, 1996;Katyal, 2002;Parnaby, 2006;Cozens, Saville, & Hillier, 2005).…”

Crime prevention through environmental design: financial hardship, the dynamics of power, and the prospects of governance

“…In so far as responsibility for crime prevention continues to shift from the state to individuals, the latter are now governed "as 'consumers,' 'partners,' 'responsible members of the community' and [as] 'active citizens'" within a neo-liberal context (O'Malley and Palmer [38]; 148). As such, CPTED is a form of governance where the giving and receiving of crime prevention advice is intended to subjectify a client such that he or she chooses to regulate his or her own conduct, the conduct of other potential victims, and the conduct of potential offenders in accordance with CPTED principles (see [40]). However, because its application frequently requires access to expendable capital, governance becomes a function of whether property owners, designers, or managers are willing and/or able to spend the necessary funds.…”

From ‘slum clearance’ to ‘revitalisation’: planning, expertise and moral regulation in Toronto’s Regent Park

“…This reflects the 'crime prevention through environmental design' (CPTED) discourse that, despite its important advances in making some urban spaces safer and more accessible, has also been described as a mechanism for social control that is practised by residents themselves rather than agents of the state, and thus fits well with neoliberal logic. 83 This paper has focused on the interrelated transitions from expert-driven to participatory planning and from Keynesianism to neoliberalism in Canada, through a comparison of the development and redevelopment of Regent Park in downtown Toronto. Further research in 2010 and 2011 will revisit and expand on arguments made here through an historical-ethnographic study of Regent Park in the midst of its 'revitalisation' -the highlight of which will be conversations with residents regarding their perceptions of the authenticity of this purported attempt to make downtown Toronto a more inclusionary and equitable place.…”