Talk:Crime prevention through environmental design

Prevention/deterrence

The difference between prevention and deterrence is hard to make out. Is this connected to your other point (always made about successful crimefighting) that it just displaces the problem, rather than eliminating it? Valetude (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This issue is separate from the displacement vs elimination issue. Choosing between prevention and deterrence is a confusing distinction, I see that. Thanks for bringing this out with your question. At the time I created this article, the term prevention was a source of criticism (and rejection) of CPTED from within the law enforcement culture in that the term prevention implies more of a physical cause-and-effect relationship than exists with CPTED. CPTED is focussed on preventing physical crimes, but does not place a countervailing physical force to directly prevent criminals from casing a potential crime scene, from lurkers in the shadows, from unauthorized access. Like a locked door, or razor wire would. Furthermore, unlike traditional crime prevention, CPTED carries the risk that it can be implemented in poorly informed ways such that it will increase vulnerability to crime, and to a degree that is not an issue with traditional security design. The criticism portion of this article could be rewritten around a more current understanding of the concern without having to rely on the subtle distinction that may or may not exist between prevention and deterrence. -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Criminals planning escape routes

Why would someone want to make something difficult for criminals to plan escape routes? 208.59.132.152 (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing and relevance

There are several claims made in the text without sourcing:

"Tests show that the application of CPTED measures overwhelmingly reduces criminal activity."

"Research into criminal behavior shows that the decision to offend or not to offend is more influenced by cues to the perceived risk of being caught than by cues to reward or ease of entry. Certainty of being caught is the main deterrence for criminals not the severity of the punishment so by raising the certainty of being captured, criminal actions will decrease."

The one empirical study cited here is a 20-year-old meta analysis based on 16 "primary studies": https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(00)00146-X/fulltext. However, this study surveyed only the impact of design changes in stores to prevent robberies, not preventing general crime in public space.

Other than this study (which is not freely available online), most thinking about public-space design comes from Oscar Newman and Jane Jacobs. As an architect and a journalist, respectively, their approaches were observational/anecdotal and prescriptive. While many of their recommendations might contribute toward better public space, it is inaccurate to claim that they definitively established the basis for or proof of the applicability of CPTED.

The Oscar Newman HUD paper that is linked claims crime decreases in a case-study neighborhood of Dayton, OH. However, the physical CPTED interventions were part of a package of strategies that were more properly called management, not design.

• Management is consistent with a general understanding of how CPTED is implemented. The lede reads: "Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is an agenda for manipulating the built environment to create safer neighborhoods."-- Paleorthid (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

(The Oscar Newman HUD paper ...)... The main CPTED interventions, gating off streets and alleys to create "mini-neighborhoods" have now been removed in many places, as you can see on Google Maps, raising questions as to how its long-term cost/benefit ratio was understood. Newman also claims in this paper that many of the people opposing his designs on Dayton were "well-spoken friends" of drug dealers and pimps.

CPTED is currently little taught in schools of planning and architecture, and other than basic awareness of the concept it is not included in the corpus of knowledge needed for professional exams in those fields. Given that the idea has been in circulation for half a century (dating from the 1970 Angel publication for the DoJ), it seems unlikely to be so ignored if its concepts had been so conclusively proved out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.153.193 (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'd disagree that it is little taught. When I got my practitioner designation, it was from Florida Atlantic University. The class is a regularly offered, upper level class. To suggest that it's a dying concept shows a lack of awareness about the practice. For example, over the past few years, an increasing number of city and county governments in my state have made it a requirement for buildings aside from single family dwellings to have a CPTED review done as part of the building process. This article can use work for sure, but the tone of your comment seems to be that the subject lacks notability. Perhaps I'm wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wmquinn (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jdnash2000, Graceswilson.

— Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

For information

This recent (2024) scientific paper could interest some of you
Rezavandzayeri, F., Khodadadi, M. R., & Talatahari, S. (2024). Crime prevention through environmental design: Numerical investigation of environmental factors affecting security in sports facilities. Retos: nuevas tendencias en educación física, deporte y recreación, (54), 746-753.
--Lamiot (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)