Urban Planning and Environmental Criminology: Towards a New Perspective for Safer Cities

Figures & data

Figure 1. Figure 1. A taxonomy of defensible space and fear of crime. Source: Cozens et al. (2002).

Figure 2. Figure 2. Awareness spaces—routine activities theory. Source: Cozens (2008c) adapted from Brantingham and Brantingham (1981).

Table 1. Situational crime prevention

Reduces opportunities for crime			Reduces opportunities and motivations for crime
Increase the effort	Increase the risk	Reduce the rewards	Reduce provocations	Remove excuses
Target harden	Extend guardianship	Conceal targets	Reduce frustration and stress	Set rules
Control access to facilities	Assist natural surveillance	Remove targets	Avoid disputes	Post instructions
Screen exits	Reduce anonymity	Identify property	Reduce emotional arousal	Alert conscience
Deflect offenders	Utilize place managers	Disrupt markets	Neutralize peer pressure	Assist compliance
Control tools/weapons	Strengthen formal surveillance	Deny benefits	Discourage imitation	Control drugs and alcohol
Source: Adapted from Cornish and Clarke (2003).

Figure 3. Figure 3. Crime risks to and crime impacts of different urban land uses. Source: Author.

Cozens , P. , Hillier , D. and Prescott , G. 2002 . Criminogenic associations and characteristic British housing designs . International Planning Studies , 7 : 119 – 136 .

 Google Scholar

Cozens , P. 2008c . New urbanism, crime and the suburbs: A review of the evidence . Urban Policy and Research , 26 ( 3 ) : 1 – 16 .

 Google Scholar

Brantingham , P. J. and Brantingham , P. 1981 . Environmental criminology , Beverly Hills, CA : Sage Publications .

 Google Scholar

Cornish , D. and Clarke , R. 2003 . Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention . Crime Prevention Studies , 16 : 41 – 96 .

 Google Scholar