2008-11-05 P & R Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

costs of preventing crime. Retrofitting an existing environment to meet CPTED can sometimes be costly, but when incorporated in the original design phase of facility planning, cost of designing to CPTED principles are often lower than with traditional approaches. Operational costs are often lower also, as CPTED lighting designs can significantly lower energy use. Adding to the attraction of CPTED is that it lowers liability. The area of liability has led to the questioning of how much crime prevention is really necessary for a given place. It has been mooted that a risk management approach might be superior to a fear-driven one. [1] (http://www.rudi.net/pages/8864) The question is, "does a community give up too much freedom, usually in terms of movement and assembly, to be free from fear of crime?" This was a question that was not widely asked in the 1990s; note the rise around the world of gated communities and the use of CCTV in public spaces. Four obstacles to adopting CPTED There are four primary obstacles to the adoption of CPTED. First is a lack of knowledge of CPT ED by environmental designers, land managers, and individual community members. For this reason, allocating substantial resources to community educational programs are often required. The second major obstacle is resistance to change. Many specifically resist the type of cooperative planning that is required to use CPTED. Beyond that, skeptics reject the research and historic precedents that support the validity of CPTED concepts. The third obstacle is the perception that CPTED claims to be a panacea for crime that will be used to displace other more traditional approaches rather than a small, but important, complementary tool in deterring offender behavior. The fourth obstacle is that many existing built areas were not designed with CPTED in mind, and modification would be expensive, politically difficult, or require significant changes in some areas of the existing built environment. References · Angel, Schlomo. (1968). Discouraging Crime Through City Planning. (Paper No. 75). Berkeley, CA: Center for Planning and Development Research, University of Cali fomi a at Berkeley. . Crowe, Tim. (2000). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. 2nd edition. Boston: Butterworth - Heinman. ISBN 0-7506-71 98-X . Jacobs, Jane. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679- 60047-7 . Jeffery, C. Ray. (1971). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. . Jeffery, C. Ray. (1977). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. · Jeffery, C. Ray. (1990). Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. . Luedtke, Gerald and Associates. (1970). Crime and the Physical City: Neighborhood Design Techniques for Crime Reduction. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. . Newman, Oscar. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan. ISBN 0-02-000750-7 . Robinson, Matthew B. (1996). "The Theoretical Development of , CPT ED' (http://www.acs.appstate.eduldept/ps- cj/vitacpted2.html): 25 Years of Responses to C. Ray Jeffery". Appears in: Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 8. Urllast accessed on May 6, 2006. · Wood, Elizabeth. (1961). Housing Design: A Social Theory. New York: Citizens' Housing and Planning Counsel of New York. . Wood, Elizabeth. (1967). Social Aspects of Housing in Urban Development. ST /SOAI71, Department of