What Is CPTED? Reconnecting Theory with Application in the Words of Users and Abusers

Abstract

Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) represents a multifaceted approach to crime reduction that draws upon theories from environmental criminology, architecture and urban design and requires the commitment of agencies as diverse as police, planners, and housing developers. Its importance as a crime reduction approach has been formalized through strategy, policy, and regulation and its effectiveness has been confirmed in evaluations (see Brown, unpublished data, Pascoe, 1999, Armitage, 2000, Teedon et al., 2009; 2010, Armitage and Monchuk, 2011). Yet there remains a lack of clarity regarding CPTED’s definition, scope, and crucially, the fundamental components that form its definition. Conscious of the need for clarity and consistency, this article presents the findings from in-depth interviews with a sample of 10 incarcerated, adult, male burglars and 10 Designing Out Crime Officers in England and Wales. The method was exploratory and inductive, with participants being encouraged to express their perceptions of housing design features and the association of these features with burglary risk. The findings reveal key similarities between the users and abusers of CPTED and confirm (and elevate) the significance of features such as surveillance. However, other features of design traditionally considered as critical to burglary risk are afforded less importance—raising questions regarding terminology, weighting and redefinition.

Vehicle Crime, CPTED, and Offending under the Influence: A Qualitative Investigation of Offender Perceptions

“…The importance of scrutinising situational cues in order to understand offending, particularly street-level acquisitive crime, is well-documented (see Brantingham and Brantingham 1978;Wortley 2001;Cornish and Clarke 2003;Wortley and Townsley 2017;Armitage 2018;Armitage et al 2018). For domestic burglary offences, aspects of the built environment, such as vegetational cover, have signalled the attractiveness of a property to be burgled (Nee and Taylor 2000;Armitage and Monchuk 2017). The presence of other features, such as a 'wheelie bin' (recycling dustbin), can be perceived to facilitate acquisitive offences (Ekblom 2011;Garwood 2011).…”

“…The presence of other features, such as a 'wheelie bin' (recycling dustbin), can be perceived to facilitate acquisitive offences (Ekblom 2011;Garwood 2011). An example of a situational cue is a street sign that indicates 'private property'; this could deter some thieves but it could attract others because it conveys the presence of property that might be of value (Armitage 2017;Armitage and Monchuk 2017). With regards to vehicle offences, the cover of vegetation, one-way roads, and open space through which an offender(s) could escape were all reported by offenders to be aspects of the built environment that could influence decisions to offend or not (Quinn and Grove 2018).…”

“…These perspectives inform us that in situations where criminal opportunity can be perceived, and the reward outweighs the risk (Bentham 2012), a rational choice might be made to commit an offence (Cornish and Clarke 1986). For instance, if an individual notices that there is sufficient cover from identification when seeking to offend (see Nee and Taylor 2000;Armitage and Monchuk 2017;Quinn and Grove 2018), then they might be more likely to offend there based on their perceived likelihood of success and the unlikelihood of detection (Cornish and Clarke 1986Cornish 1994).…”

“…To refer to a risk calculation (Bentham 2012) within the rational choice perspective (Cornish andClarke 1986, 2017;Felson 1994;Clarke and Felson 2004), impairment caused by drugs or alcohol could alter the level of risk that an offender is willing to take. For example, an offender who is under the influence might risk committing an offence without the presence of cover (see Nee and Taylor 2000;Armitage and Monchuk 2017), or they might feel less confident that it will diminish their risk of detection because of substance-induced paranoia (see Collison 1996), or they might be indifferent to its presence. For the present study, in order to probe an association between drug and alcohol dependency and offender perceptions of the potential to commit vehicle offences, there are two questions to answer:…”

“…In support of the research of Armitage (2017) and Armitage and Monchuk (2017) that probed the effect private signs and seemingly affluent housing might have on offender perceptions, there was a consensus that the preferred location to commit theft was in less affluent areas. Features that helped this sample of offenders to identify an affluent area included: bigger houses (Aaron), Neighbourhood Watch signs (Dwayne), retirement housing (Darryl), signs reminding owners to take valuable belongings out of vehicles (Don), and large driveways (Ali).…”