2021
Urban planning
and crime:
THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE
AND TRENDS IN CRIMINALITY
DION STEINZ – S2412764
SUPERVISOR: DR. J. MATTHYS
1
1 T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
2 Introduction ... 3 2.1 Prior Research ... 4 2.2 Research Question ... 6 2.3 Relevance ... 7 2.3.1 Societal relevance ... 7 2.3.2 Academic relevance ... 8 3 Theoretical Framework ... 93.1 A general overview of CPTED ... 9
3.2 CPTED concepts and principles ... 11
3.3 Inclusion of criminological theory ... 13
3.4 Criticism ... 14
4 Methodology ... 17
4.1 Research design and variable ... 17
4.2 Comparative case study design ... 18
4.3 Data gathering ... 21
4.4 Data analysis ... 21
4.5 Operationalization ... 22
4.6 Validity and reliability ... 25
5 Analysis... 26 5.1 Schilderswijk-west ... 26 5.1.1 Natural surveillance ... 26 5.1.2 Access control ... 29 5.1.3 Territoriality ... 30 5.1.4 Maintenance ... 32 5.1.5 Activity support ... 33
2 5.1.6 Summary ... 34 5.2 Valkenboskwartier ... 36 5.2.1 Natural surveillance ... 36 5.2.2 Access control ... 39 5.2.3 Territoriality ... 42 5.2.4 Maintenance ... 43 5.2.5 Activity support ... 44 5.2.6 Summary ... 46 5.3 Comparative ... 48 5.3.1 Natural surveillance ... 48 5.3.2 Access control ... 50 5.3.3 Territoriality ... 51 5.3.4 Maintenance ... 52 5.3.5 Mixed zoning ... 53 5.3.6 Overview ... 54 6 Conclusion ... 59
6.1 An answer to the research question ... 59
6.2 Reflection ... 60
3
2 I
NTRODUCTION
At the time of writing, the summer months are rapidly approaching. This means vacation, and time away from home and, with the warm summer air, open windows – factors that are relatable for large portions of the population in the Netherlands. Alongside other factors, these two effects make burglaries an increasingly realistic threat for homes during the summer month, which represents a danger for society in general (Bedfordshire Police, 2014; Stuff, 2014; Lauritsen & White, 2014). A potential solution that is offered from the perspective of safety and security management is the principle of CPTED – Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. This principle seeks to deter criminals by limiting the opportunity to commit crime, including burglary. However, the effectiveness of CPTED in combatting burglaries has not been measured in the Netherlands yet – if there is any effectiveness at all. And so, that is what must be explored further – is CPTED effective at combatting burglaries? The CPTED principle works through enhancing five factors in a given location: natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, maintenance, and activity support. Each of these factors resembles an element in criminological theory, such as maintenance, which represents clean streets and well-kept buildings, to diminish the effects of the broken window theory, or natural surveillance, which represents windows that have good views of the surrounding neighbourhood to reinforce social control. Through architectural design choices such as these, feelings of safety and the risk of burglary can be decreased.
Two areas in the Hague near the city centre have varying levels of burglaries being committed. Where Schilderswijk-West had 52 burglaries, Valkenboskwartier had only 13 (Politie-eenheid Den Haag, 2018). In this research, the intent is to compare the CPTED applications in both neighbourhoods to seek out whether there is a potential link between the varying levels of burglary, and the varying levels of CPTED applications in these neighbourhoods.
There are many factors that lead to burglary – as is evidenced by the sheer number of criminological theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of ‘crime’ – and the environment can be considered to be one of those factors (Wilson & Kelling, 1982; Jacobs, 1961; Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Gibbons, 1979; Piquero, 2015; Johnson, 1978). These factors logically also apply to burglary, a form of crime.
Among these factors there is the explanation of space and time, in which it is supposed that the geographical location in combination with the time is the leading factor in explaining why
4 crime occurs in certain locations rather than others (Bernasco, 2010; Bernasco, Block & Ruiter, 2013; Bernasco, Johnson & Ruiter, 2015; Townsley et al., 2015; Townsley et al., 2016). This is especially relevant for burglary, as the motivations for target selection in relation to burglary are much more rigid. The environment is relatively static compared to other forms of crime, such as pickpocketing, as these forms of crime rely on a dynamic entity (people passing by) whereas burglary relies on a static entity (a geographical location).
The reasoning as to why burglaries specifically are being researched is the fact that CPTED is particularly well equipped to deal with burglaries. The components of CPTED are focused on the area around a home and the social cohesion that comes from living in an area for a prolonged period of time, a scenario in which CPTED is and becomes more effective (Minnery & Lim, 2005). Or, as Reynald puts it, “CPTED components appear to be intimately intertwined with dimensions of active guardianship—specifically actual supervision of surroundings by residents and intervention when necessary,” (Reynald, 2011, p. 78). Thus CPTED has an almost natural relation to burglaries as the conditions for a high degree of efficacy in CPTED are met by residents of static geographical locations.
2.1 P
RIORR
ESEARCHIn the article Target selection models with preference variation between offenders (Townsley et al, 2016) Townsley identifies several possible explanations for why a crime might occur in one place and not another. These factors are reward, which is the potential gain for the criminal; risk, the potential of being caught for the criminal; vulnerability, the vulnerability of the target itself; proximity, the relative closeness of the target to the home of the criminal; and awareness, which Townsley says is the proximity of the target to the city centre, as it is presumed that targets closer to the city centre will be better known to the criminals. In Townsleys study it was found that the factor risk weighed in very little, whereas the leading factor was proximity (Townsley et al., 2016). In other words, the risk of being caught was not a deciding factor for the criminal in determining whether or not to burglarize a certain home. Rather, the deciding factor was how close the target was to their own home.
5 Similar results arose from a similar study between the Netherlands, Australia, and the United Kingdom. In Burglar target selection: a crossnational comparison (Townsley et al, 2015) the same factors were identified, and the results showed that a lack of social control (increase of risk) only provided a 103% risk of a burglary in the area – at the same time, a burglar’s proximity to the target accounted for 167% risk of a burglary in the area (Townsley et al, 2015). However, if Townsley has found that a decreased risk for the criminal only led to a 3% decrease in target risk, risk, how is it that Casteel and Peek-Asa found that multiple-component CPTED approaches—of which the purpose is to increase the risk for burglars—produced a “30% to -84%” change in crime (Casteel and Peek-Asa, 2000, pp. 106—110).
If the results of Townsley’s research indicate that risk is only a marginal factor in the determination of where to commit a crime, then the principles of CPTED – to increase risk for the offender – should not apply to the target selection of a burglar during the target selection phase, and attention and funds would be better spent on crime prevention using other methods. However, the review of Casteel and Peek-Asa seems to indicate the opposite, in that the CPTED methodology is in fact effective and can provide a large reduction in crime.
The CPTED methodology is more preferred over the method of Townsley, however, because it provides a direct answer to the question of what can be done. It is easily translated into countermeasures whereas Townsley’s analysis does not provide any answers as to how the problem can be combatted – in that sense, this was also not Townsley’s intent. Furthermore, CPTED is a natural candidate when it comes to burglary, because of its relation to residents of a static location (Reynald, 2011, pp. 78) and the countermeasures that CPTED promotes being a part of, and supporting that geographical location (i.e. CPTED countermeasures are static architectural countermeasures that belong in the area of residence) (Atlas, 2008; Clarke, 2009; Cozens & Love, 2015; Crowe & Fennelly, 2013; Lab, 1988; Parnaby, 2006; Schneider & Kitchen, 2007; Stollard, 1991; Welsh & Farrington, 2009; Crowe; 2000; Ekblom, 2011; Cozens, 2014).
6
2.2 R
ESEARCHQ
UESTIONThis leads to a paradox. On the one hand, the factor of risk was found to be only a marginal factor in the determination of targets (Townsley et al, 2016, pp. 295; Townsley et al, 2015, pp. 15). On the other hand, increasing the risk for offenders using CPTED was found to be effective in reduction in crime by using CPTED (Casteel & Peek-Asa, 2000, pp. 106-110). Ergo, there exists a contradiction in the literature on the effect of ‘risk’ on crime. To explore whether or not CPTED can be used to explain crime levels, this research will seek to answer the following question: how can CPTED explain the differences in (attempted) burglaries between Schilderswijk-West and Valkenboskwartier in the city centre of the Hague in the Netherlands? To better answer this research question, this thesis has corroborated between numerous sources of CPTED (Atlas, 2008; Clarke, 2009; Cozens & Love, 2015; Crowe & Fennelly, 2013; Lab, 1988; Parnaby, 2006; Schneider & Kitchen, 2007; Stollard, 1991; Welsh & Farrington, 2009; Crowe; 2000; Ekblom, 2011; Cozens, 2014) to determine how to standardize the measurement of CPTED (see figure 1, pp. 15). This corroboration will be used to enhance the standardization and operationalization of the research, to ensure that an otherwise subjective topic, namely CPTED, can be replicated and to provide the research with more authenticity and accuracy.
7
2.3 R
ELEVANCE2.3.1 Societal relevance
There is an absolute relevance to studying CPTED and its effects, as successful crime prevention strategies help with pushing back crime (Casteel & Peek-Asa, 2000; Clarke, 1997; Minnery & Lim, 2005). At the very least, this is its intention. The potential of stopping criminal activity is a positive net outcome for all those involved and, with a stretch of the imagination, can even benefit criminals by forcing their hand to seek hopefully more legitimate sources of income. After all, if CPTED is successful in deterring burglaries within an area, then it is possible that the pull factors towards crime are reduced due to a lower availability of targets. By analysing the two neighbourhoods, it is possible to come up with CPTED countermeasures that can be applied in other areas with low affluence or, in the case that it is found that CPTED is not relevant for these areas, to suggest that other solutions might be more meaningful for these types of locations.
However, it is never truly that simple, and it must be acknowledged that there are many more factors that go into criminality and its push-and-pull factors than simply architectural design (Wilson & Kelling, 1982; Jacobs, 1961; Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Gibbons, 1979; Piquero, 2015; Johnson, 1978). Despite this, it should also be acknowledged that CPTED has had remarkable success in previous case studies (Casteel & Peek-Asa, 2000; Clarke, 1997; Minnery & Lim, 2005; Minnery & Lim, 2005), and so the avenue of exploration on the differences between low- and high-crime neighbourhoods in terms of CPTED application should also be utilized.
Furthermore, there is also an interesting crossover between concepts of local community policing and the issues that metropolitan police forces face across Europe. As policing and policework becomes a more heated topic of contention in social-political spheres across the United States and in Europe, as well as the role of police in local policing becomes debated, it is apparent that a solution in some form must be reached (Devroe et al, 2017, Devroe, Edwards & Ponsaers, 2017).
In many ways, CPTED seems to be the perfect tool for that, as it allows residents to exercise their own form of policing that, if needed, can be used to aid the local police forces, especially so in cities where there is not necessarily enough manpower in the police force to perform all their duties. Similarly, in those spheres where currently the position of police is debated as a
8 whole, CPTED may provide an answer to the question as to how they will police themselves if not through the police departments.
2.3.2 Academic relevance
Furthermore, there is also an academic relevance in broadening the scope of the effects and limitations of CPTED. As it stands currently, there are a lot of studies that examine the effects of CPTED on feelings of safety and victimization, however none truly look at the direct linkage between CPTED and burglary despite the fact that CPTED is theoretically the perfect tool to dissuade burglaries from occurring.
As it stands, the physical representation of CPTED has rarely been audited, instead mostly taking the form of surveys that investigate how people feel about CPTED in their neighbourhood. In those cases where audits have occurred (Minnery & Lim, 2005) it has not been performed extensively, primarily due to the limitations on qualifying CPTED research. By answering the research question of this thesis, hopefully additional information about not just CPTED itself or its effects, but also how it can be measured will become known.
9
3 T
HEORETICAL
F
RAMEWORK
3.1 A
GENERAL OVERVIEW OFCPTED
CPTED as a concept was first coined by Ray Jeffery in his book Crime prevention through environmental design (1971). The theory emphasizes the role that physical surroundings (environmental design) take in deviancy and criminality, and the way that a potential victim can use three out of the four required elements of criminality to reduce the risk of being a victim – these three factors being opportunity, motivation, and risk. The last factor (history) is not in the hands of the potential victim, but by diminishing the first three factors through environmental design, Jeffery argues, one can diminish the chance of becoming a victim and thus reduce criminality (Jeffery, 1971).
When Jeffery published his book, Oscar Newman was working on his book Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (1972), which would focus primarily on creating what Newman called “defensible space” in housing. Key elements identified by Newman in his book are the requirement for two factors that need to be present for “defensible space” to work. First, Newman establishes that social control is a must, and this must be obtained locally through what would later be called natural surveillance. This means that, within a neighbourhood, the ability to see and be seen should be facilitated. Second, Newman states that not only should one be seen and be able to see others, but locals should also be willing to report crime when it does occur, or otherwise perform some kind of intervention when needed (Newman, 1972). With these two elements in place, a defensible space can be created.
However, this was not the only element he included in his book. Newman also believed that part of a defensible place was its status as private, semi-private or semi-public, allocating different areas of a neighbourhood to different groups in an organic way. For example, the creation of playgrounds or sitting areas would not only facilitate natural surveillance but also a sense of ownership, which would facilitate a willingness to intervene to protect this “common area.” (Newman, 1972).
Later, Newman would combine both his and Jeffery’s theories into a more unified theory on Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. In this new book Creating Defensible Space (1976), Newman goes into depth about a New York case study and highlights how defensible space or CPTED could help. Consolidating the ideas of CPTED so far in this book would
10 provide the framework for future advancements on CPTED that would see additional elements included, such as broken window theory.
More recently, efforts have been made by Johnson and Gibson in their article CPTED, but not as we know it: Investigating the conflict of frameworks and terminology in crime prevention through environmental design (2013), which sought to critique the existing framework of CPTED as it is supplied to practitioners and researchers. In short, there exists no real solitary framework in which CPTED exists, and there is no one definition that can describe CPTED accurately. Johnson and Gibson sought to remedy this by creating and proposing such a framework through quantified research on what the commonly accepted CPTED concepts are (Johnson & Gibson, 2013). This new framework is not (yet) part of the many CPTED resources that exist.
A year later Johnson and Gibson followed up this research with another article that expresses how widespread the terminology is in relation to CPTED: ambiguity is a major factor, they found, in diminishing the transferability of CPTED principles and concepts (Johnson & Gibson, 2014). What this means is that different terms were used to describe the more commonplace concepts such as territoriality or maintenance. According to Johnson and Gibson, this includes more oft-used terminology such as “target hardening” or “natural surveillance,” described by Johnson and Gibson as “more common and understandable,” and also less frequently used terminology such as “communitarianism” and “reinforcing natural kingdom”, which are described by Johnson and Gibson as “diverse concepts,” (Johnson & Gibson, 2014).
What this seems to indicate is that there is no properly centralized and organized theory of CPTED, and rather it is all decentralized and loose understandings of the same principle in a general sense. This leads to similar but different understandings of CPTED concepts, reducing the transferability, and lacking centralization, could lead to different streams of CPTED thought existing.
CPTED provides a reasonable pathway to the (local) policing of growing cities. In their book Policing European Metropolises (2017), Devroe, Edwards and Ponsaers discuss the differing police models that are in use (pp. 25). To the end of local community policing, CPTED is a tool that can be utilized by the police departments and city planning divisions of governments to create neighbourhoods and public locations that can police themselves. This could, if properly executed, lead to a decreased need for police officers to be present to police, which is
11 an ever-growing problem in police departments in metropolises – there are too many things to do, and not enough police officers to do them. Reducing the burden of patrolling on the police department could alleviate some of the stresses of policing metropolises.
Similarly, in their article Eigenrichting en rechtshandhaving door burgers (2017) Devroe et al. speak of vigilantism and policing by civilians. For this CPTED could also provide a meaningful way to incorporate elements of local policing into the policing strategy and model without any of the harmful effects of vigilantism. Local citizens can provide a meaningful contribution to the safekeeping of their local communities without running the risk of negative situations such as violent incidents or innocents being hurt in the name of justice. Instead, citizens can care for their local communities and locations through exercising social control.
As such, it’s probable that CPTED can provide a beneficial pathway to an improved form of policing that is not based around repression but instead around fostering a sense of community.
3.2 CPTED
CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLESCrime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) has gone through ‘phases’ that have changed its meaning over time, incorporating more and different elements into the principle as the practice of it progressed. In its core, however, CPTED is a concept that utilizes various theories from many disciplines, such as architecture, urban planning, criminology, geography, psychology, and sociology (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007) to enhance both the objective safety and the feeling of safety within a given area (Crowe & Fennelly, 2013, pp. 24-25).
CPTED as a principle of design utilizes various attributes that should be present in a community in order to effectively combat crime. These attributes are natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007, pp. 24; Crowe & Fennelly, 2013, pp. 27; Cozens & Love, 2015, pp 3) and sometimes also maintenance (Crowe & Fennelly, 2013, pp. 28-29; Cozens & Love, 2015, pp 3) and the proper placement of land use (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007, pp. 24), or activity support (Lab, 1988, p. 56; Cozens & Love, 2015, pp 4) which finds its roots in Jane Jacobs theory on the mixed use of American city blocks (Jacobs, 1961) and its impact on social control, which reinforces natural surveillance.
Lastly, there is an additional concept related to, but not always a part of, CPTED known as target hardening, which are direct countermeasures in a risk management setting that are meant to ‘harden’ the target, or in other words, make it harder to breach (Cozens & Love, 2015,
12 pp 4). This is a less architectural form of crime prevention and more a traditional form of risk management. For this category, one might think of locks and bars over windows.
All of these concepts are then placed in the broader geographical setting of the target – which means to say the influence that the geographical location has on these concepts (Cozens & Love, 2015, p 4).
The implementations of these attributes are utilized for their easy-to-implement nature and can be seen on every street or in every neighbourhood. Something as simple and everyday as a window is a CPTED countermeasure, which makes it easy to understand why CPTED can exist ‘impromptu’ without intentionally including it. Other measures include lighting and trees to enhance natural surveillance, other forms of foliage, chain-link fencing, or other types of fencing to indicate territoriality, regular cleaning of the streets and repairing broken items (broken windows, graffitied walls) to make the street appear maintained and cared for. Countermeasures like these enhance the defensibility of a location and reduce the risk of burglaries.
13
3.3 I
NCLUSION OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORYEach of these attributes is drawn from one of the multidisciplinary roots of CPTED – however, the most important theory for CPTED is the principle of opportunity – in which opportunity theory is the compound of various criminological theories (Clarke, 2009, pp. 4—7). The most important among those, for the purpose of CPTED, are routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979), which either enhances or weakens natural surveillance, and rational choice theory (Cornish & Clarke, 1986) as they seek to explain the motivations behind why crime is committed, explaining the opportunity theory that CPTED is based on. It can be applied more importantly for CPTED to ask why crime is committed in a certain area and not in other areas. For this purpose, Clarke has identified several factors, namely risk, effort, reward, provocation, and shame and guilt (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007).
These factors together form ‘opportunity,’ and through this opportunity it can be explained why certain criminal acts are prevalent in one area and not in other areas. For example, the risk in an area where a lot of crime occurs is simply lower for the offender than in other areas where no crime occurs. Perhaps the effort put into the crime-ridden area is less impactful for the offender than in areas that are less subjected to crime (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Schneider & Kitchen, 2007).
Furthermore, the inclusion of maintenance adds another theoretical element to the principles of CPTED, namely through the broken window theory, which is not so much an opportunity theory as the previous theories. Instead, it states that if an area is poorly maintained, then potential offenders feel like ‘it won’t matter’ if they also engage in crime – after all, it seems normal for the area. If an area is well maintained, it gives off a sense of ownership and care for the area, which implies that people will care if you commit a crime there (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).
The inclusion of multi-disciplinary approaches to the concept of CPTED provides it with a large layer of theoretical foundations, and as such there are more theories that can be linked to the practices of CPTED; however the previous three mentioned theories provide the main backbone of the theoretical framework of CPTED, given that CPTED primarily revolves around natural surveillance through social control (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007; Crowe & Fennelly, 2013; Cozens & Love, 2015), decreasing opportunities for criminality, and ensuring that properties look ‘cared for’ through territoriality and maintenance (Crowe & Fennelly, 2013; Cozens & Love, 2015). A tertiary attribute is the mixed usage of land, which is
14 sometimes combined with the social control factor, and sometimes treated as a separate attribute entirely (Lab, 1988; Cozens & Love, 2015; Jacobs, 1961; Schneider & Kitchen, 2007) As mentioned previously, CPTED has been credited with large margins of success, measured from a “30% to 84%” decrease in robberies (Casteel & Peek-Asa, 2000, pp. 106-110). Other studies often cite successful case studies (Crowe & Fennelly, 2013, pp. 47; Clarke, 1997) that detail specific cases in which CPTED was used, such as electronics stores that utilized a new layout that offered better social control and reduced the shoplifting rate. In part, this is because CPTED seeks to include these theories in the logic of its design. Through understanding why potential offenders seek out certain geographical locations to commit crime and which factors potential offenders look at when making that determination, it is possible to limit these factors and thus decrease the opportunity for crime to occur within an area. That is ultimately the objective of CPTED.
3.4 C
RITICISMHowever, there are several critical notes to place along the concept of CPTED. The simplicity of CPTED is a great asset in its ability to convince policy makers of its accessibility, and the positive effects case studies have had in the past are undeniable. However, in this also lies its pitfall. As argued by Ekblom (2011) and Cozens (2014), CPTED has often been oversimplified, and applied in a way that does not capture the spirit and intent of CPTED. Even Crowe himself has argued that “the greatest impediment to the widespread use of CPTED is ignorance” (Crowe, 2000, pp. 220).
Additionally, according to research by Parnaby (2006) CPTED practitioners often utilize certain tools of discourse, such as the discourse of salience, discourse of efficacy, and the discourse of compliancy (Parnaby, 2006, pp. 18). Furthermore, it should be noted that in interviews with CPTED practitioners, Parnaby noted a particular way of speaking among these practitioners, speaking about an objective separation between ‘people that belong’ and ‘people that do not belong’ or in other words, a separation between ‘morally righteous upstanding citizens’ and ‘criminals,’ (Parnaby, 2006, pp. 19) through politicized discourse. This, however, seems to be directly opposite of the opportunity theories that CPTED seeks to promote – after all, opportunity makes the thief, or in this case, the offender. As such, there exists no ‘clear’ line that we can use to differentiate between upstanding citizens and criminals.
15 As such, it can be noted that the theory of CPTED and the practice of CPTED are very different, and indeed can be rooted in the ignorance of the practitioners.
CPTED is also known for producing a displacement effect on crime, in which potential criminals simply move away from the area if it becomes too protected, resulting in hotspots in criminality in areas that are less protected (Clarke, 2009; Clarke, 1997). This can typically be taken to mean less affluent neighbourhoods that do not have the resources to utilize CPTED countermeasures (Atlas, 1991). CPTED is a costly affair, and while affluent neighbourhoods might benefit from the implementation of CPTED, neighbourhoods with poor access to public funds are not likely to be able to raise the funds to apply CPTED. Pairing this with the displacement effect means that application of CPTED in (affluent) neighbourhoods could displace criminals to other, less affluent neighbourhoods, which are not as well equipped to deal with criminality and could thus create ‘hotspots’ of criminality.
Furthermore, the concept of CPTED appears to be a double-edged sword, as the research of Atlas (1991) has noted that criminals are taking over CPTED strategies to ‘take control’ over the area through utilizing the ‘defensible space’ principle, or CPTED.
Alongside these questions of critique on the practice of CPTED, there is also the question of relevancy. As mentioned previously, it was found that the element of risk of being caught (social control) was only a small portion of the equation for potential offenders (Townsley et al, 2016, pp. 295; Townsley et al, 2015, pp. 15). Or, in other words, the risk factor did not account for any substantial amount of opportunity for the potential offenders, and instead, effort was the key factor to determine where to strike. However, an argument could be made that appropriate CPTED measures, such as target hardening or effective territoriality marking as well as appropriate social control could increase the amount of effort that is required, and thus still produce an efficient countermeasure.
Furthermore, CPTED has a tendency to displace crime rather than ‘solve’ it (Clarke, 1997) Because CPTED proposes that one should make the targets of would-be crime unattractive to criminals, it means that the potential offenders do not target a certain target but would rather move somewhere else. As a result, effective CPTED countermeasures in one district might displace crime to another district where CPTED countermeasures might be less effective (Clarke, 2009). Because of this, crime is not truly ‘solved’ by utilizing CPTED. Instead, it simply shifts the problem to someone else, somewhere else. It is effectively the policy version of throwing up one’s hands and saying, ‘’Not my problem anymore.’’
16 Lastly, research into the place-time relationship with crime, most often the offenders are locals (Townsley et al, 2016, pp. 295; Townsley et al, 2015, pp. 15) and as such, CPTED does not provide any answer, as locals evade the social control – they belong to the community, and do not stand out – and are allowed access to the community, neutralizing the access-control factor of CPTED (Clarke, 2009, pp. 9). This in turn makes CPTED less effective as social control also no longer applies. However the factors should still apply as CPTED also includes several countermeasures against insider threats as well, such as territoriality, maintenance, and the mixed use of a neighbourhood.
Furthermore, the close proximity of neighbourhoods in the city centre, in which it is often hard to determine the border of neighbourhoods, also makes it more likely that outsider threats are more likely to occur than in spread-out suburban neighbourhoods in the exterior regions of the Hague. Lastly, the fact that the city centre is a high-traffic area where people come and go, both in terms of foot traffic and in terms of moving in and out of a neighbourhood, the social cohesion is presumed to be much lower in the city centres, which makes insiders much more likely to appear as an outsider.
However, in light of CPTED’s success rates (Casteel & Peek-Asa, 2000; Clarke, 1991; Minnery & Lim, 2005; Reynald, 2011), it is almost certain that CPTED has a large margin of success against outsider-threats, and different solutions might need to be found to target insider threats, such as advancements in target hardening.
More recently, CPTED, specifically Newman’s version of CPTED, has been criticized for placing too heavy a burden of the environment on the potential criminal. Although the critique acknowledges that Newman’s vision was entirely different from its implementation, the implementation seen directly as a result of Newman’s theory enforces the idea that the environment determines behaviour, not just shapes it. Furthermore, Newman pleaded for the survival of the open society, but instead led to the creation of gated communities that, at best, could be described as paranoid and extremely closed off (Knoblauch, 2015).
17
4 M
ETHODOLOGY
4.1 R
ESEARCH DESIGN AND VARIABLEIn order to answer the research question how can CPTED explain the differences in (attempted) burglaries between Schilderswijk-West and Valkenboskwartier in the city centre of the Hague in the Netherlands? a robust methodology is established to streamline the process towards answering the question.
First and foremost, it must be established what specifically is being researched, and how it will be measured. To do so the variables must be determined in order to accurately define and measure them.
In the case of Schilderswijk-West and the Valkenboskwartier, the independent variables are those variables that are not affected by externals, which in this research is the principles of CPTED: natural surveillance, access control, territoriality, maintenance, and activity support.
18 The dependent variable in this research is the burglary rates in the two areas selected for the research question. Unlike the independent variable, this variable is influenced by outside influences and may fluctuate.
4.2 C
OMPARATIVE CASE STUDY DESIGNThe choice for a case study research was made on the basis of Yin’s book Case study research and applications (2018). The type of research that is to be conducted fits the criteria proposed by Yin, namely that first and foremost, the research posits a how question, secondarily, there is no control over the behavioural events in the study, and lastly, the areas of study are part of an ongoing phenomenon, and not a historical event, meaning that the “case” is ongoing and therefore cannot be studied only by literature review (Yin, 2018).
For this reason, a case study method was chosen as it represents the best chance at studying the case, as it is ongoing, at this moment. Furthermore, the type of research question being a “how” question indicates that the question seeks to explain some sort of (social) phenomenon, or in this case, a criminological phenomenon, to which a case study lends itself well compared to other types of studies.
Alternatives included an experiment, or a historical review of CPTED in these neighbourhoods, but neither of these are possible because an experiment requires control over the behavioural events, and a historical review requires the event to have passed for it to be reviewed. As we are reviewing a recent trend in criminological data, this is not (yet) possible. This leaves the case study as the preferred method (Yin, 2018).
Strategy Research question Control over events Contemporary event
Case study How, why? No Yes
Experiment How, why? Yes Yes
Survey Who, what, where,
how?
No Yes
Archive analysis Who, what, where, how?
No Yes/no
Historical analysis How, why? No No
19 Following the guidelines on choosing the research type and eliminating those types of research that do not apply to, or can not apply to, the research question at hand, the only reasonable method of performing this research is the case study (Yin, 2018; COSMOS Corporation, 2000; Teiu & Juravle, 2011).
In order to verify the findings, they will be analysed according to the theories that they are meant to represent, these being the (lack of) maintenance and territorial reinforcement in relation the broken window theory, and natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, access control and activity support in relation to social control. In this way, the research will seek to motivate why certain findings are labelled as positive or negative applications of CPTED by using the theory as a reasoning for why a certain ‘rating’ was chosen. Verifying the application of CPTED is easiest through the use of an observation of the chosen locations.
The reasoning behind choosing this methodology is that analysing the application of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design approaches requires a qualitative approach as the criteria of the application of CPTED (natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, maintenance, and activity support) are not quantifiable in the small scope of the research. Effectively, this means that the experiment will take the shape of an ‘audit’ to compare the two neighbourhoods to see how they differ, and whether or not this can help in explaining the difference or whether other factors are at play.
In order to draw such a conclusion, a cross-case-analysis will be used, since the study will study the effects of CPTED on the burglary rates in two cases, representing two specific neighbourhoods in the Hague with different burglarizing rates. As Babbie describes in his book the practice of social research this approach is “an analysis that involves an examination of more than one case; this can be either a variable-oriented or case-oriented analysis,” (2013, pp. 383).
Babbie goes on to explain the differences between variable-oriented and case-oriented analysis. Because this research is going into depth on the topic of one of the variables that affects crime rates (CPTED implementations), this research follows a variable-oriented analysis, attempting to determine the effect of one variable one crime rates. However, as Babbie states, “there is no pretense that the researcher can predict every individual’s behaviour nor even explain any one person’s motivations in full. Sometimes, though, it’s useful to have even a partial explanation of overall orientations and actions,” (Babbie, 2013, pp. 383) and to this end, it is possible or
20 even likely that while CPTED may or may not explain the crime rates, that there are other variables at play too that also affect the crime rates in these areas.
The qualitative approach was selected because it is better able to represent the physical characteristics of the CPTED methodology and allows for a more in-depth analysis of why Valkenboskwartier has less burglaries than Schilderswijk-West. Quantitative research also does not fit the theory of CPTED, as numerical research (for example, the number of bollards, or the total length of fences) does not say anything about whether or not these measures had any effect, as implementation is based on effective use of CPTED measures, and not the total use of CPTED measures. Therefore, quantitative research is not able to answer the question asked in this thesis.
Utilizing the checklist, however, it is possible for the experiment to be repeated, and if one were to visit the same locations and analyse or audit them on their applications of CPTED, one should be able to find the same, or similar answers as propositioned in this thesis. In turn, this should make the audit itself at the very least reliable.
In terms of accuracy or validity, the subjective nature of audits must be acknowledged, however by operationalizing the variables (the CPTED principles) and utilizing a protocol by using an audit checklist (see figure 1, pp. 15) the research is replicable by others. The weakness of the research is inevitable as per the subjective nature of CPTED, and auditing CPTED. However, this subjective nature can be offset by making the criteria by which the neighbourhoods will be audited more objective by streamlining them and providing evidence for the findings.
The selection of the two cases (Schilderswijk-West and Valkenboskwartier) was made on several grounds. First and foremost, the most important factor is that there is a noticeable difference in burglary rates between these the Schilderswijk-west area (52 burglaries) and Valkenboskwartier (13 burglaries). Secondarily, they are similar in size, have a similar designation as living area with some local businesses to account for mixed-use, and both have a police station within or nearby the area; this is important to ensure that both cases experience the same or similar conditions as much as possible to minimize outside influences on the research. Lastly, both neighbourhoods exist within the same geographical location (the Hague), and in close proximity to each other in walking distance of one another, which is part of the reason that the difference in burglary rates is so staggering and makes these cases interesting to research, but also to ensure that the local population has access to the same travel network.
21
4.3 D
ATA GATHERINGData gathering for the research is performed through an audit of the relevant areas (Schilderswijk-West and Valkenboskwartier). Selecting an audit as the data gathering method In order to properly audit the neighbourhoods, the criteria by which their use of CPTED is analysed must be streamlined by using the various sources on CPTED to corroborate a general overview of what CPTED needs in order to be successful. As such, the neighbourhoods will be audited on the aforementioned criteria of CPTED, namely natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, maintenance, and activity support. These criteria are drawn from various sources and corroborated from books and articles such as Crime Prevention through housing design by Rachel Armitage (2013), Crime prevention through environmental design by Timothy D. Crowe and Lawrence J. Fennelly (2013) and the article Measuring crime prevention through environmental design by Minnery and Lim (2005). These sources were specifically chosen as they were, on their own, corroborations of CPTED theory brought into practice to highlight what elements of CPTED needed to be present, and how these were intended to be implemented by policymakers.
The observation of these criteria in the two chosen neighbourhoods will be formatted into an audit log, substantiated with evidence in the form of photographs of the relevant observations related to the application of CPTED in these neighbourhoods, analysed at a certain section of the neighbourhood. It is important to note here that in the location of this research (the Netherlands), taking photos in public places like streets is legally allowed, however that may not be the case in other countries.
Through the use of streamlined criteria and a definition of the way in which these criteria are measured, as well as evidence to substantiate the claims made about the neighbourhoods application of CPTED, the subjective nature of CPTED can be reduced in the audit, and thus reducing the impact of that subjectivity on the reliability of the research.
4.4 D
ATA ANALYSISAfter determining the manner of application of CPTED in the two areas in the form presented above, the differences will be highlighted and analysed in order to determine whether any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from the differences in order to explain whether or not the practice of CPTED has an effect on the rate of burglaries in these areas, as well as the difference in the number of burglaries between the neighbourhoods. For example, if the
22 neighbourhood which has a lower rate of burglaries is found to have a meaningfully better application of CPTED (i.e. scores much higher in the audit) then a conclusion can be drawn about the possibility of CPTED having a positive impact on the burglaries in that area.
4.5 O
PERATIONALIZATIONUnfortunately, CPTED has proven in the past to be hard to operationalize – in no small part due to the fact that CPTED is best utilized at a very local level, to a degree that makes any users’ experience of CPTED principles different. Lighting that is suitably bright for one user might be too harsh or too dim for another user entirely. Most research that attempts to measure the effects of CPTED do so through a survey that allows locals to impart their sense of safety through a grading system (Siti Rasidah & Aldrin, 2010; Lee, Park & Jung, 2016; Roongsittchichai, 2008). A survey style research does not fit the goal of this specific research incredibly well, however, as the goal is to determine the implementation success of CPTED and not necessarily the user experience. For this reason, as well as the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic at the time of performing the research, a survey was deemed inappropriate for the goals of this thesis.
Very little research has been done to measure the effects of CPTED by auditing it. Most research has gone into CPTED itself; what are effective CPTED solutions, how do criminological theories apply to it, and how do we design these concepts into the real world? Whether or not these methods are actually effective, and whether CPTED deserves a place in modern day criminological city planning, is a topic that is not oft-discussed, partially because of the fact that it is so hard to measure hard data, and not just user experience and gut-feelings on the topic of safety and security.
Never the less, John Minnery and Bill Lim attempted this for their research into CPTED applications in Queensland, Australia in their article measuring crime prevention through environmental design (2005). However, their article only provided one example of a completed derivation of CPTED scale measures, and so it is not possible to follow their exact methodology for the sake of standardization.
Due to this, a new set of standardized CPTED scales has been produced for the research (see figure 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7), which will draw on the aforementioned articles and the ground principles of CPTED, as well as examples of successful CPTED implementations (Newman, 1996). Doing so will also allow the conversion of qualitative data (photographs, subjective
23 auditing, commentary on the concepts and their implementation) into a more quantitative scale, in accordance with the way past surveys have done so. This will create a clearer image of both neighbourhoods CPTED implementation and allow a direct comparison of the total average score of each neighbourhood.
The reasoning for translating a purely qualitative analysis and audit into a quantitative scale seems to be contrary to previous statements that CPTED is not easily or accurately translated into quantitative datapoints. However, in this case the quantification is purely for the purpose of visualization and does not represent actual quantified data. Instead, it should be considered a numerical representation of the qualitative assessment.
Taking into account previous works on measuring CPTED, and using the literature that exists on CPTED implementation, the scales developed for the research look as follows.
Figure 3
Figure 4
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - Entire route obscured 3 - Parts of route obscured 5 - Entire route visible
1 - All windows/doors obscured 3 - Some windows/doors obscured 5 - All windows/doors visible 1 - Entire yard can be used to hide 3 - Several locations in yard to hide 5 - No places to hide in yard at all 1 - Entire property is unlit 3 - Parts of property unlit 5 - Entire property lit
1 - Light spills over into all windows 3 - Light spills over into some windows 5 - Minimum light spillover
1 - Cars parked out of line of sight 3 - Some cars parked in line of sight 5 - All cars parked in line of sight Natural
surveillance
Car parking Light pollution
Gate to door route visible Sightlines to
doors/windows unobstructed Concealment
Lighting
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - Entire route obscured 3 - Parts of route obscured 5 - Entire route visible
1 - Any sort of traffic moves here 3 - Only light amounts of non-residential traffic
5 - Residential traffic only 1 - No entry monuments
3 - Entry monuments, but not relevant 5 - Entry monument that proclaims resident community and identity Access control
Entry monuments Number of access points/escape routes
24
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - Most people share a common entrance (i.e. appartments)
3 - Only some people share a common entrance (i.e. portiek)
5 - Everyone has their own entrance 1 - Everyone shares the same common areas
3 - Only some people share common areas (i.e. shared balconies, backyards) 5 - Everyone has their own spaces 1 - No yard space, building attached to sidewalk directly
3 - Not directly attached to sidewalk but no yard
5 - Sufficiently removed from sidewalk Territoriality
Common entrances
Common areas
Proximity to parallel sidewalks
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - Buildings in a state of disrepair, graffiti everywhere
3 - Buildings minimally maintained 5 - Buildings regularly maintained 1 - Territorial features in state of disrepair
3 - Territorial features minimally maintained (chipped paint, small holes) 5 - Territorial features clearly well maintained
1 - Streets are filthy, trash is everywhere
3 - Streets are relatively clean, but still have small amounts of "normal" litter 5 - Streets are entirely clean
Maintenance
Buildings maintained
Territorial features maintained
Streets maintained
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - No mixed zoning 3 - Some mixed zoning 5 - Mixed zoning occurs 1 - Only traffic is residential 3 - Some non-residential traffic 5 - Constant non-residential traffic Mixed zoning
Traffic Activity support
25
4.6 V
ALIDITY AND RELIABILITYAs Yin points out in Case study research and applications (2018) in terms of construct validity, “the first test is especially challenging in case study research,” (pp. 79). This is true for the research in this thesis too – there is the challenge that the data gathered is not necessarily representative of true reflection of the two neighbourhoods, but instead based on the subjective impressions of the auditor. However, Yin proposes that there are two criteria to be met for case study research to pass the first test. The research must be defined in specific concepts (and related to the original objectives of the study), and secondarily operational measures that match the concepts need to be identified, preferably cited from other studies. In this case, the audit criteria outlined above are in fact linked to specific concepts namely those of CPTED, in which CPTED is also the objective of the study. Secondarily, the operational measures were identified at the hand of relevant excerpts from other literature about these concepts, as well as existing studies that attempt to measure CPTED. In doing so, the subjectivity of the case study style research has been minimized as much as possible.
The “second test” as identified by Yin relates to the internal validity of the research. Firstly, Yin states that “internal validity is mostly a concern for explanatory case studies,” and explains that it is a problem mostly for exploring causal relationships. However, in this research, it is more or less expected that other elements may have an impact on the end result, and the research doesn’t necessarily seek to explain burglary rates at the hands of only CPTED implementations, rather than to explore whether or not CPTED has an influence on this at all. The “third test” as Yin puts it “deals with the problem of knowing whether a study’s findings are generalizable beyond the immediate study.” In this study, it is unlikely that the findings are entirely generalizable as each neighbourhood would score differently on the audit – no neighbourhood is built architecturally the same, after all. However, the concepts that come up in the audit are most certainly repeatable and applicable to other neighbourhoods, and as such the research itself is replicable and generalizable, and the conclusions drawn from it will also be generalizable to a degree – finding out whether certain CPTED applications have an effect on burglaries can certainly help in other neighbourhoods.
The last test that Yin mentions deals with the reliability of the research. This is a problem for this specific research, as mentioned before every neighbourhood is different, and CPTED solutions are generally viewed through the lens of a subjective experience of CPTED solutions. For example, the criteria of “lighting” can mean different things to different people. This is
26 further made difficult by the fact that CPTED as a whole struggles with centralized wording and concepts, and terminology may differ, and thus invoke different responses from different people (Johnson & Gibson, 2014). However, to combat this the audit was made using corroborative resources and articles that highlight CPTED implementations from the viewpoint of policymakers to make the process repeatable and more objective by utilizing concepts related to CPTED.
5 A
NALYSIS
5.1 S
CHILDERSWIJK-
WEST 5.1.1 Natural surveillanceThe audit of the Schilderswijk-west area showed that there are ample examples of well-executed natural surveillance. This is, in large parts, because of the fact that the routes to and from doorways and windows are generally visible, and concealment opportunities are very minimal. Concepts that generally lead to poor implementations of CPTED (such as the typical Dutch “portiek” as seen in figure 8) did not necessarily lead to diminished scores in the audit due to the fact that the sightlines to and from the door are clear. The option of concealment in these portieken is prominent mostly due to the fact that they are poorly lit. This was characteristic of the
entire Schilderswijk-west area. Street lighting seems to be the only source of light in the areas in front of houses, and home lighting is generally not implemented. As can be seen in figure 8, the portiek is quite dark even in broad daylight, and at night time is completely darkened and offers ample opportunity for people to hide themselves from onlookers effectively.
27 Unfortunately, stairwells like these also have
the nasty side effect of limiting the view of the doors from angles that are not at roughly a 90-degree angle from the stairwell. For an example of this, refer to figure 9. The doors and windows of all the buildings are very clearly visible, apart from those that are blocked by vehicles. However, from the angle at which the photo is taken (approximately 45 degrees) the doors are no longer visible due to the nature of the construction of these stairwells.
This in turn reduces the natural surveillance – and is part of the reason why portieken do not fit into the CPTED concept very well, even if
the Dutch city planning concepts use them to make efficient use of the space in these (old) neighbourhoods. To this end, stairwells like these, which are highly characteristic of Dutch city design especially in older neighbourhoods, do not facilitate a more safe and secure environment from an architectural perspective, because they reduce the natural surveillance. This is especially noticeable in Schilderswijk-west, due to the large amount of these stairwells. Also note the graffiti on the stairs in figure 8. The hidden profile of stairwells like these and the lack of light at night time make these types of stairwells attractive targets for all types of crime, not just burglary, but also vandalism.
Figure 9 – portiek at roughly a 45 degree angle shows that sight on doors is reduced
28 One redeeming factor in this issue that should be noted here is that the portieken in Schilderswijk-west are structured to increase the sightlines to the doorways. In figure 10 a traditional Dutch portiek is shown in the Hague, with an enclosed top part of the stairway with decorative stonemasonry. While this stonemasonry allows for some light to fall into the stairwell, most of the light is blocked and the sightlines to the doorways are blocked as well. Contrast this to the implementation of portieken in the Schilderswijk-west area, as shown in figure 11, where no blockage occurs and the amount of daylight reaching the doorways is increased. Furthermore, a dim light can be seen in figure 11 that
enhances the amount of light at night. Despite the fact that the portiek is not visible at an angle, the open construction does allow one to see the door, unlike the construction in figure 10. Unfortunately this is not the case everywhere. As can be seen in figure 12, sometimes the implementation of portieken is less successful. Here, on the border of the Haagse markt, the portieken are older and therefore constructed in the older style represented in figure 10. Luckily, the doors are still relatively visible from the street level, but the less open construction leads to less light falling into the stairway and the lack of home lighting makes it incredibly dark, which increases the opportunity for criminals to burglarize the homes.
Figure 12 – portiek on one of the main streets of Schilderswijk-west, bordering the Haagse markt Figure 10 – portiek in Den Haag (van Erne,
2010)
29 5.1.2 Access control
Access control in Schilderswijk-west is well implemented. There is little to no opportunity for escape routes, and the access points are all connected in such a way that they are visible from multiple angles. There are no alleyways to escape through, and the sections in between streets that allow for passage from one street to the other on foot take the shape of common areas such as parks and playgrounds (see figure 12).
Unfortunately, not all of these parks and playgrounds are equally active, which reduces the amount of natural surveillance. However, all of these parks are open and spacious, with very few obstacles that limit surveillance. Thus, the natural surveillance is enhanced and allows for a natural form of access control to occur, where locals can see who is entering their neighbourhood and streets.
30 In terms of vehicle control, the Schilderswijk-west area performs moderately. The geographical location of the neighbourhood encourages non-locals to travel through it by car, especially on the main streets (for example, the de la Reyweg and the Hoefkade). This is further enhanced by the fact that the large number of local businesses and the well-known Haagse markt attract a lot of vehicular traffic as well that is not necessarily residential in nature. This has pro’s and con’s – the fact that people drive by these areas produces natural surveillance, but it is unlikely that non-residents traveling through the area feel connected to the area and are therefore less likely to act on it if they see something that looks suspicious.
This lack of connection to the area is also shown through the (lack of) entry monuments. The few entry monuments that do exist are mostly based on abstract art – they do not necessarily represent the local sense of identity and are less effective at creating the sense of community that CPTED thrives on.
5.1.3 Territoriality
The territoriality of the Schilderswijk-west area is moderate at best. Although there are many homes that have their own private entrance, there are almost no front yards which does not offer a lot of space for locals to express their ownership of a certain building. This lack of expression of ownership is further diminished by the large number of common entrances such as portieken and apartment buildings.
When looking at figure 13, it becomes quite apparent that there are no defining ownership features attached to these entries, or even the building they are attached to. Portieken suffer the same problem (see figure 8, 10, 11) in the Schilderswijk-west area. There are no defining features on this
building, entrance or any of the stairwells that indicate that people care for the entry or stairwell, which makes it a more attractive target according to CPTED principles.
31 The common areas such as parks and playgrounds are well maintained, large, and offer plenty of activities for children, teens, and adults. However, most of the playgrounds and parks do not attract enough traffic to make use of all the space in these parks. This leads to some questions about whether or not this empty space that is not under natural surveillance at all times might lead to criminal activities such as vandalism, especially because these spots could be used as hiding spots if there are no residents making use of the space.
The fact that most of these large parks can be closed off, however, diminishes the potential impact of low natural surveillance, at least at night. The question is whether these parks are closed off at night, or if the gates are unused.
Furthermore, either due to maintenance or no vandalism or other crimes occurring, most of the parks and playgrounds look well maintained and do not suffer from (visible) vandalism.
32 5.1.4 Maintenance
Schilderswijk-west is relatively well maintained in all facets of maintenance – the buildings in old areas of the neighbourhood are maintained at the same degree as newly built homes and appear to be regularly maintained either by the owners or by rental companies. This is visible in, for example, figure 9 and 11. In these cases figure 9 is an older building and figure 11 is a newer building, in which both follow the same use as a home with a common shared entrance and are in similar states of maintenance; there is no visible damage to the façade of either building.
As can be seen in figure 16, there is also road maintenance occurring on a large scale.
Although it looks messy (which, theoretically, could contribute to the broken window theory workings of CPTED), this is temporary. At the same time, visible road works is evidence that maintenance (on a governmental level) does occur, which reinforces the idea that the government also takes care of the maintenance of territorial features such as the fencing around the playground and parks, as well as the plants and other territorial features that designate an area as lived-in and cared for spaces (for example, see figure 15 and 13).
Unfortunately, this only seems to go for select areas in the Schilderswijk-west area. Several areas, specifically those around high-traffic main streets, featured planters that were in disrepair, and in which the plants were all dead. The planters themselves were filled with trash. This was indicative of a larger problem in Schilderswijk-west; certain areas were relatively clean and had “normal” levels of litter, while other streets were very filthy, had piled up trash everywhere, even in areas that weren’t necessarily designated for trash (such as large underground trash containers). It seems as though the smaller areas of Schilderswijk-west receive more attention in terms of maintenance than some of the main streets and high-traffic areas.
33 5.1.5 Activity support
Activity support is one of Schilderswijk-west’s strongest areas and it scores perfectly in both criteria for the principle of activity support. The market of the Haagse markt attracts a very large amount of traffic, most of which arrives on foot (the market is not accessible by car unless you pay for underground parking). This creates a large amount of traffic through the neighbourhoods that is not purely residential, creating “more eyes on the street” as it were.
It is not just the market, however, that attracts traffic as there are a very large number of stores and other businesses located within residential areas. These are most common in older streets, and not very prevalent in newer areas of the Schilderswijk-west. However, even in newer areas of the Schilderswijk-west neighbourhood, there are some activities that can be found that are not commercial in nature. For example, the moskee el Islam organization in figure 17, or the neighbourhood centre in figure 18. This mixed zoning, even if non-commercial, produces local traffic inside of these neighbourhoods, leading to an increase in natural surveillance for these areas. This, in turn, should lead to safer neighbourhoods through the principles of CPTED.
Figure 18 – de Burcht neighbourhood centre Figure 17 - stichting moskee el Islam in Schilderswijk-west
34 5.1.6 Summary
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - Entire route obscured
3 - Parts of route obscured
5 - Entire route visible
1 - All windows/doors obscured
3 - Some windows/doors obscured
5 - All windows/doors visible 1 - Entire yard can be used to hide
3 - Several locations in yard to hide
5 - No places to hide in yard at all 1 - Entire property is unlit
3 - Parts of property unlit
5 - Entire property lit
1 - Light spills over into all windows
3 - Light spills over into some windows
5 - Minimum light spillover 1 - Cars parked out of line of sight
3 - Some cars parked in line of sight
5 - All cars parked in line of sight Natural
surveillance
Car parking
Pa ra l l el roa ds wi th pa rki ng -- but a l s o s ome pri va te pa rki ng. Unl i ke i n Va l kenbos kwa rtier, no s i ght on pri va te pa rki ng.
Light pollution
Street lighting spills into lower level windows, and there are many locations where there are no window Gate to door route visible
Sightlines to doors/windows unobstructed Concealment
Lighting Lots of street lights, but no home
lights, leaving dark spots.
Pa ra l l el roa ds ma ke mos t routes vi s i bl e, beca us e there i s no terri tori a l
rei nforcement. Ma ny portieken, however, obs cure vi ew.
Pa ra l l el roa ds ma ke mos t routes vi s i bl e, beca us e there i s no terri tori a l
rei nforcement. Ma ny portieken, however, obs cure vi ew.
The lack of territorial reinforcement makes it impossible to hide in the yard -- there is no yard. Very easy to hide in a portiek.
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - Entire route obscured 3 - Parts of route obscured
5 - Entire route visible
1 - Any sort of traffic moves here
3 - Only light amounts of non-residential traffic
5 - Residential traffic only 1 - No entry monuments
3 - Entry monuments, but not relevant
5 - Entry monument that proclaims resident community and identity Access control
Entry monuments Only abstract art. No sense of local
identity or community. Number of access
points/escape routes
There are no alleyways or escape points anywhere in the Schilderswijk-west area. Mainly normal streets.
Vehicle control
Vehi cul a r non-res i dentia l tra ffi c i s l i mi ted pri ma ri l y to mi xed-zoni ng a rea s wi th commerci a l bui l di ngs ; however, they frequently unl oa d wa res a nd l ea ve tra s h behi nd.
CPTED principle Performance measures Scale measure Additional commentary/photographs
1 - Most people share a common entrance (i.e. appartments)
3 - Only some people share a common entrance (i.e. portiek)
5 - Everyone has their own entrance 1 - Everyone shares the same common areas
3 - Only some people share common areas (i.e. shared balconies, backyards)
5 - Everyone has their own spaces 1 - No yard space, building attached to sidewalk directly
3 - Not directly attached to sidewalk but no yard
5 - Sufficiently removed from sidewalk Territoriality
Common entrances
Many portieken, most of which do not provide surveillance access for neighbors to a door. There are enough 1-family homes for a level 3 scale measure, however.
Common areas
There are no shared common areas attached to houses -- mostly because backyards and frontyards are not that prevalent here. Where they do exist, they are private.
Proximity to parallel sidewalks
Only a few homes have yards, on one street specifically. The only territorial features that show care for a building are window decorations and national flags that do proclaim identity.
