Research Repor

National Institute of Justi

Physical Environment

and Crime
The National Institute of Justice, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the researc

and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. NIJ was established to prevent an

reduce crime and to improve the criminal justice system. Specific mandates established by

Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 direct the National Institute of Justice to:

■ Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will improve and

strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime.

■ Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches

for improving criminal justice.

■ Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

■ Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise

to be successful if continued or repeated.

■ Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as

private organizations to improve criminal justice.

■ Carry out research on criminal behavior.

■ Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency.

The National Institute of Justice has a long history of accomplishments, including the

following:

■ Basic research on career criminals that led to development of special police and prosecuto

units to deal with repeat offenders.

■ Research that confirmed the link between drugs and crime.

■ The research and development program that resulted in the creation of police body armor

that has meant the difference between life and death to hundreds of police officers.

■ Pioneering scientific advances such as the research and development of DNA analysis to

positively identify suspects and eliminate the innocent from suspicion.

■ The evaluation of innovative justice programs to determine what works, including drug

enforcement, community policing, community anti-drug initiatives, prosecution of complex

drug cases, drug testing throughout the criminal justice system, and user accountability

programs.

■ Creation of a corrections information-sharing system that enables State and local officials 

exchange more efficient and cost-effective concepts and techniques for planning, financing, a

constructing new prisons and jails.

■ Operation of the world’s largest criminal justice information clearinghouse, a resource use

by State and local officials across the Nation and by criminal justice agencies in foreign

countries.

The Institute Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate,

establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs

the Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively

solicits the views of criminal justice professionals to identify their most critical problems.

Dedicated to the priorities of Federal, State, and local criminal justice agencies, research and

development at the National Institute of Justice continues to search for answers to what works

and why in the Nation’s war on drugs and crime.
The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

For more information on the National Institute of Justice, please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com

 You can view or obtain an electronic version of this document from the

NCJRS Bulletin Board System (BBS)

or the NCJRS Justice Information Center World Wide Web site.

To access the BBS, direct dial through your computer modem:

(301) 738–8895 (modems should be set at 9600 baud and 8–N–1),

or Telnet to ncjrsbbs.aspensys.com or

Gopher to ncjrs.aspensys.com 71

To access the World Wide Web site, go to

http://ncjrs.aspensys.com:81/catalog.html

If you have any questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.
January 1996

Physical Environment

and Crime

Ralph B. Taylor

Adele V. Harrell

A Final Summary Report Presented to the

National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis

Director

Richard Titus

Project Monitor

Ralph B. Taylor is a professor of criminal justice at Temple

University. He received his Ph.D. in social psychology

from Johns Hopkins University in 1977. Adele V. Harrell is

a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. She

acquired her Ph.D. in sociology from George Washington

University in 1983.

NCJ 157311

This project was supported under award number 90–IJ–CX–K022 by the

National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of

Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of

the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
Contents

Introduction ................................................................................ 1

Assuming a Rational Perspective ............................................... 2

Overview of Four Approaches ................................................... 3

Housing Design Features and Block Layout .............................. 7

Land Use and Circulation Patterns ........................................... 10

Resident-Generated Territorial Signage ................................... 14

Controlling Physical Deterioration and Disorder ..................... 16

Pending Issues .......................................................................... 22

Conclusion ................................................................................ 23

References ................................................................................ 24

1

Introduction

Can physical features of the environment prevent crime or reduce problems thought to be crime related, such as fear of crime

or residents’ concerns about neighborhood viability? Crime

prevention through environmental design (CPTED) focuses on

the settings in which crimes occur and on techniques for reducing vulnerability in these settings.

This report discusses assumptions surrounding work in this area

and the major studies that link neighborhood and street block

physical features with crime, fear of crime, and other related

outcomes. Four major sets of physical features are emphasized

in the research literature: housing design or block layout, land

use and circulation patterns, resident-generated territorial features, and physical deterioration. Each of these approaches is

discussed individually, and their policy implications are highlighted. The report ends with a series of questions that have not

yet been answered by research.
2

Assuming a Rational Perspective

How might physical features influence behavior? Researchers

have made several assumptions about how physical features

affect both potential offenders and residents or users in a setting.

Offenders often operate in a rational fashion; they prefer to

commit crimes that require the least effort, provide the highest

benefits, and pose the lowest risks. Researchers have applied

this rational offender perspective to a range of crimes (Clarke,

1983, 1992; Clarke and Cornish, 1985). This view suggests that

crimes are most likely to occur when potential offenders come

into contact with a suitable crime target where the chances of

detection by others are thought to be low or the criminal, if detected, will be able to exit without being identified or apprehended. In short, the crime site lacks a natural guardian.

Physical environment features can influence the chances of a

crime occurring. They affect potential offenders’ perceptions

about a possible crime site, their evaluations of the circumstances surrounding a potential crime site, and the availability

and visibility of one or more natural guardians at or near a site.

Offenders may decide whether or not to commit a crime in a

location after they determine the following:

• How easy will it be to enter the area?

• How visible, attractive, or vulnerable do targets appear?

• What are the chances of being seen?

• If seen, will the people in the area do something about it?

• Is there a quick, direct route for leaving the location after the

crime is committed?

These questions assume a rational offender perspective. The

relevance of this perspective to an understanding of crime

depends on a range of factors, including the type of crime and

the familiarity between offender and victim or target.

The offender-based perspective relates to residents or users in a

setting when it suggests potential offenders consider a setting’s
3

natural guardians. Much of the work in this area, which relies on

empirically grounded models of human territorial functioning

(Taylor, 1988), assumes residents or users may respond to potential offenders. The probability and type of response depends

on a range of circumstances—social, cultural, and physical.

Physical features may influence reactions to potential offenders

by altering the chances of detecting them and by shaping the

public vs. private nature of the space in question.

Overview of Four Approaches

Assuming that potential offenders and residents or users of a

setting are affected by this rational perspective suggests four

approaches to making a location more resistant to crime or

crime-related problems.

• Housing design or block layout. Making it more difficult to

commit crimes by (1) reducing the availability of crime targets;

(2) removing barriers that prevent easy detection of potential

offenders or of an offense in progress; and (3) increasing physical obstacles to committing a crime.

• Land use and circulation patterns. Creating safer use of

neighborhood space by reducing routine exposure of potential

offenders to crime targets. This can be accomplished through

careful attention to walkways, paths, streets, traffic patterns, and

location and hours of operation of public spaces and facilities.

These strategies may produce broader changes that increase the

viability of more micro-level territorial behaviors and signage.

For example, street closings or revised traffic patterns that decrease vehicular volume may, under some conditions, encourage

residents to better maintain the sidewalk and street in front of

their houses.

• Territorial features. Encouraging the use of territorial markers or fostering conditions that will lead to more extensive marking to indicate the block or site is occupied by vigilant residents.

Sponsoring cleanup and beautification contests and creating
4

controllable, semiprivate outdoor locations may encourage such

activities. This strategy focuses on small-scale, private, and

semipublic sites, usually within predominantly residential locales (Taylor 1988, chapter 4). It is most relevant at the street

block level and below. It enhances the chances that residents

themselves will generate semifixed features that demonstrate

their involvement in and watchfulness over a particular delimited location. This approach has not proven directly relevant to

crime, but it is closely linked to residents’ fear of crime.

• Physical deterioration. Controlling physical deterioration to

reduce offenders’ perceptions that areas are vulnerable to crime

and that residents are so fearful they would do nothing to stop a

crime. Physical improvements may reduce the signals of vulnerability and increase commitment to joint protective activities.

Physical deterioration, in all probability, not only influences

cognition and behavior of potential offenders but also shapes

how residents behave and what they think about other residents.

This focus on physical incivilities or signs of disorder (Skogan,

1990) is distinct from the preceding focus on territorial features.1

First, there is a difference in scale. Reduction of incivilities addresses larger physical problems than does a territorial focus.

An incivilities reduction program might emphasize any of the

following:

• Securely closing or “capping” private vacant dwellings to prevent further deterioration and to preserve house values and a

neat block appearance.

• Removing trash and abandoned cars from a large vacant lot.

• Razing deteriorated vacant houses.

• Repaving worn sidewalks in a commercial area with bricks.

These efforts often require significant involvement from city

agencies or community-development or private corporations.

Citizens and neighborhood associations clearly can and do play

roles in initiating and assisting such efforts. Whereas a territorial

1. Social as well as physical signs of disorder exist. The authors focus here solely on

physical ones.
5

focus concentrates on small-scale, resident-controlled spaces

and resident-based dynamics, the incivilities approach is more

inclusive. Although it is concerned with the impact on residents,

the physical features considered can be located in residential or

nonresidential spaces.

Second, the level of physical deterioration is usually too extensive for management by resident-based groups. Residents are

not responsible for preventing large numbers of vacant houses or

stores in a locale or for removing graffiti from the walls of a

large school. One researcher has noted specifically that residents

presume that deterioration emerges as a failure, in part, of public

agencies (Hunter, 1978).

Third, there is a difference in emphasis. The territorial approach

concentrates on cues from resident involvement, maintenance,

and protection; the incivilities situation represents large-scale

lapses in the local order.

Incivilities reduction, however, may complement improvement

strategies based on resident-generated territorial marking and

signage. Reductions in larger physical problems may encourage

such markers and signage.

Each of the four approaches can reinforce the others separately

or collectively. For example, incivilities reduction may complement the strategic focus on building design and block layout. If

two vacant units being used as crack houses on a block are

razed, the number of potential offenders may be reduced. The

interlocking aspect of the four approaches suggests that where

possible, practitioners consider how each may be of help when

they look at a particular setting. Stated differently, varying intervention points and levels of intervention may make or encourage

physical improvements that may enhance safety and feelings of

safety (see “Success Stories”).

An indepth discussion of each approach will show how each of

these strategies offers a unique perspective that frequently

complements the others.
6

Success Stories

Research and evaluations have provided examples of situations where physical design or redesign appears to have contributed substantially to lowering crimes or to crime-related

public order problems.

• Designing safer public housing. Buildings with fewer

apartments per entryway, fewer stories, and better views of

the outside have residents with lower levels of fear and rates

of victimization (Newman and Franck, 1980, 1982).

• Erecting barriers and changing street patterns. In a

North Miami neighborhood, building barriers and altering

street patterns seem to have helped residents reduce the volume of drug dealers and buyers driving through the area. The

result: Crimes such as auto theft and assault declined more

rapidly in their neighborhood than in the city as a whole (Atlas, 1991; Ycaza, 1992).

• Controlling access to buildings, schools, parks, public

housing, or other trouble spots through the use of regulated entry. Measures used by the Bronx’s Community and

Clergy Coalition, for example, include requiring an identification card, setting limited hours of usage, diverting traffic

through specific checkpoints, and using metal detectors in

schools or other public buildings (Weisel, Gouvis, and

Harrell, 1994).

• Creating safer public places. Seattle’s Adopt-a-Park program removes overgrown trees and bushes and increases

lighting in neighborhood parks to deter drug dealing, vandalism, and the presence of homeless persons (Weisel, Gouvis,

and Harrell, 1994). Success was reported for a similar project

in a major downtown public park in Stockholm (Knutsson,

1994).
7

Housing Design Features and Block

Layout

Can housing design and block layout make residents less vulnerable and feel safer? The originally formulated idea is that physical features that offer better surveillance, delineation between

public and private space, segmentation of outdoor space into

locations controlled by smaller groups, and proximity of sites to

well-used locations enable stronger resident-based informal control of outdoor, near-home spaces. Such control should lead to

less delinquency, less fear, and less victimization (Newman,

1972; Jacobs, 1961).

Studies of varying quality began testing these ideas in the early

1970’s and continued at a rapid pace for the next dozen years. In

1980, a theory was formulated that made a distinction between

“first generation” and “second generation” defensible space

(Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower, 1980). In the latter version,

researchers considered more carefully how the impact of physical features on fear and victimization may depend upon other

social and cultural features in the setting, and they made more

realistic assumptions about territorial behavior and cognition

(see exhibit 1).

Defensible Space

Features of Setting

Local Social

Dynamics

Cultural/Ethnic

Composition and

Heterogeneity

Other Setting

Factors

More Extensive Residents'

Use of Outdoor Locations

Stronger Resident-Based

Informal Social Control

Lower Victimization Rates

Lower Residents' Fear of Crime

Lower Levels of Police Activity

Exhibit 1. Second Generation Defensible Space Theory
8

Defensible space theory has received strong supporting evidence

from studies of public housing in Britain and the United States

and from studies of residential street blocks in the United States

(e.g., Newman and Franck, 1980, 1982; Perkins, Meeks, and

Taylor, 1992; Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower, 1984; see Taylor, 1988, for a review). What many consider to be one of the

strongest studies focused on 63 public housing sites around the

country (Newman and Franck, 1982). The study found that sites

with more defensible space features had residents who better

controlled outdoor spaces and were less fearful and less victimized.

Practical implications. This work led to implementation of specific design elements in numerous locations. For example, parking garages with outer walls of glass for the stairwells were

constructed. In public housing, this perspective led to the construction of low-rise sites with clear segmentation of private

space, clear boundaries between public and private space, and

good lines of sight. (See photos of the front and back of the

Sandtown-Winchester Redevelopment Project in Baltimore, one

example of recent low-rise public housing. For a discussion of

the social, community, and organizational dynamics surrounding

this project, see McDougall, 1993.)

Fronts and backs of the Sandtown-Winchester Redevelopment Project in

Baltimore, Maryland. Houses are located at the corner of Whatcoat Lane and

Laurens Avenue, just west of Laurens and Calhoun. Note the well-defined

outdoor spaces, making it clear the spaces are part of the residential unit,

particularly in the backyards with fences. Design also provides excellent

surveillance opportunities. (Photographs by Ralph B. Taylor)

Limitations. One of the major limitations to expanding the

number of defensible space designs has been the lack of research

Photo A Photo B
9

about how potential offenders view or use the physical features

in question. Researchers have recently recast the discussion of

defensible space features into a threefold grouping of physical

features: prospect, refuge, and escape (e.g., Fisher and Nasar,

1992):

• Settings with high refuge offer concealment for the potential

offender.

• Settings with high prospect allow the legitimate user to survey

a wide area.

• Settings with high escape potential offer easy escape for the

legitimate user.

This view of defensible space focuses explicitly on potential

victim-potential offender dynamics in specific locations (see

exhibit 2). Research confirms that fear is higher in locations that

offer good refuge for the potential offender but low prospect and

escape for the user.

Refuge


for potential offender

✦	 tall shrubs


✦	 alcoves


✦	 blind corners

✦	 long lines of sight


✦	 wide angle of view

Exhibit 2. Indicators of Refuge, Prospect, and Escape

Prospect


for user

✦	 multiple exit points 	

	 close at hand

Escape


for user
10

An additional limitation is that the effectiveness of defensible

space features depends in part upon the immediate social and

cultural context. Defensible space can be left “undefended”

(Merry, 1981a). More knowledge is needed about the characteristics of context that allow defensible space features to more

effectively support resident-based control. In all fairness, however, this limitation applies to all perspectives that link physical

environment features with crime and related outcomes, and it is

not unique to this theoretical perspective.

Land Use and Circulation Patterns

The internal layouts, boundary characteristics, and traffic patterns of neighborhoods may encourage or discourage different

types of crime. By implication, changes in land uses, boundaries, and traffic patterns may result in higher or lower crime

rates because they affect both potential offenders and users.

They may alter exposure to potential offenders because they

more or less integrate the locale into the offenders’ orbits of activity (Rengert and Wasilchick, 1985).

Neighborhood level. At the neighborhood level, planners classify the relevant features into movement generators, such as

high-volume streets, and attractors and nonresidential land uses,

such as shopping, that will draw outsiders. Movement generators

result in more people moving through a residential locale;

attractors and nonresidential land uses generate more people

traveling to a residential locale.

Cross-sectional and longitudinal works both suggest strong connections between these physical features and crime levels.

Cross-sectional studies in Atlanta (Greenberg and Rohe, 1986;

Greenberg, Williams, and Rohe, 1982) and Richmond, Virginia

(White, 1990), found that the internal layouts of low-crime

neighborhoods were less permeable—more one-way, narrower,

and lower volume streets—than those found in higher crime

neighborhoods.
11

A recent study examined effects of physical environment on

crime changes. The percentage of lots zoned for commercial use

was a significant predictor of increased risk of high robbery

rates in Washington, D.C. (Harrell and Gouvis, 1994). But the

presence of public housing units, found in many census tracts in

Washington, was not significantly related to changes in neighborhood risk of burglary, robbery, or assault in those areas. Longitudinal research in Hartford (Fowler and Mangione, 1986;

Fowler, McCalla, and Mangione, 1979) and an unpublished

evaluation in Miami (Ycaza, 1992) suggest that physical

changes to internal circulation patterns and boundaries were

followed by lower crime rates. Planners have routinely worked

with neighborhoods across the country to analyze their crime

problems and to reduce them by making physical alterations

(Gardiner, 1994).

In the studies involving redesign, however, local social or organizational dynamics have often accompanied planned changes.

Although it seems likely that design changes themselves have

been partially responsible for the impact observed, researchers

have not yet precisely estimated their independent contribution

to lowering crime, fear, or perceived risk. How much of the benefit has been due to the redesign, and how much has been due to

the social and organizational changes surrounding the planned

change?

Practical implications. There are several practical implications

of this research at the neighborhood level:

• Social and organizational conditions are important when

changes in layout, traffic, or land use are being considered.

Community involvement of residents, neighborhood organizations, and local businesspersons is essential for developing a

plan free of adverse effects on major interest groups.

• Local involvement may be an important precondition not only

for rational, maximally beneficial change but also for achieving

a redesign that will actually reduce crime. One study suggests

that changes in layout, under conditions of community mobilization, appear to have been partially responsible for decreases in

some crimes (Fowler and Mangione, 1986). But the crime-pre-
12

ventive benefits of changes in layout appear to weaken as community mobilization wanes.

• An early step in planning redesign to prevent crime is understanding offender location. For some offenses, such as auto

theft, offenders may come from other neighborhoods. For other

offenses, such as drug dealing, offenders may live in the area. If

they come primarily from outside the neighborhood, can residents readily distinguish between these potential predators and

individuals who are in the neighborhood for legitimate purposes? If they can make the distinction, physical impediments to

entry and circulation may result in less crimes committed by

certain types of offenders.2

• Neighborhood layout and boundaries—ease of circulation, a

higher proportion of nonresidential land use—appear linked to

higher street crimes and more burglary.

These implications need to be tempered by the recognition that

crime prevention is just one objective of land use planning. As

one of the anonymous reviewers of this report stated:

Other objectives, such as economic development or

equal housing opportunities, might at times conflict

with a crime-prevention or fear-reduction objective.

The planning process surrounding design or redesign

will need to balance these potentially competing goals.

Street block level. At the street block level, nonresidential land

use and high traffic volume may interfere with residents’ ability

to manage activities on the block and to recognize people who

belong to the neighborhood. Pioneering research found that residents living on higher vehicle traffic streets used their front

yards less and withdrew from neighbors (Appleyard, 1981).

Higher levels of foot traffic, often associated with nearby commercial or institutional land use, also caused the same social

cocooning (Baum, Davis, and Aiello, 1978). Nonresidential land

2. There are two important caveats to this strategy. First, the limitations on entry and

circulation must not severely limit other purposes served by the streets and institutions

in the neighborhood. In addition, the distinctions drawn between insiders and potential

offenders from outside must be empirically founded and not driven by class-based or

ethnically based prejudices.
13

uses and associated higher foot and vehicle traffic levels make it

more difficult for residents to get to know one another and to

distinguish between legitimate users of the setting and potential

offenders. Such dynamics can be understood in the context of

resident-based territorial functioning (Taylor, 1988, chapter 8).

In short: Nonresidential land uses create holes in the fabric of

resident-based informal control, and higher traffic or pedestrian

volumes shrink the geographic extent of resident-based informal

control.

Consequently, residents living on blocks with higher levels of

nonresidential land use are more concerned for their personal

safety and less likely to intervene if they see something suspicious; they experience higher victimization rates and call the

police more often. These links have been supported by evidence

from numerous studies conducted in different cities around the

country (Kurtz, Koons, and Taylor, 1995; McPherson, Silloway,

and Frey, 1983; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, and Chavis,

1990; Roncek and Bell, 1981; Roncek and Faggiani, 1985; Taylor, Kurtz, and Koons, 1994). Not surprisingly, nonresidential

land uses, such as bars, are particularly troublesome on residential blocks (Frisbie et al., 1978).

At the same time, increasing the number of people on or around

the block in some settings may enhance informal surveillance

and reduce some types of offenses. It also may contribute to

other neighborhood goals, such as economic development. Good

design and management may, to some extent, reduce some

crime risks around facilities and public attractions.

Practical implications. What are the practical implications of

these street block dynamics?

• They do not mean that stores and small businesses should be

removed from residential settings. As noted earlier, land use

planning for crime-prevention purposes may conflict with other

legitimate goals, such as economic development. Residents depend on these services. Further, in settings where proprietors

have long tenancy or are culturally similar to residents, they
14

make important contributions to the safety and orderliness of

street life (Jablonsky, 1993:80; Jacobs, 1968).

• Nevertheless, in locations where sizable “gaps” exist between

residents and entrepreneurs, steps may be needed to draw the

personnel staffing nonresidential land uses into contributing to

overall street order.

In older urban locations in many cities, residents and entrepreneurs are often of different ethnic backgrounds (e.g., AfricanAmerican residents vs. Korean entrepreneurs) and therefore

have different cultures. It is sometimes difficult for each group

to interpret the behavior of the other (Merry, 1981b), which in

turn may impede entrepreneurs’ contributions to informal control over events on the street. An important role for police community-relations councils and local business organizations may

be to develop strategies so these entrepreneurs can contribute

meaningfully to resident-based control over street life.3

Understanding the effects of nonresidential land use on informal

control on the street block is limited by a lack of recent work

examining relationships between entrepreneurs and residents in

inner-city neighborhoods. There are several excellent recent

ethnographies of inner-city life by, among others, Elijah Anderson, Elliot Liebow, Terry Williams, and Phillipe Bourgois.

None, however, provide significant detail about resident-shopkeeper relationships and how they may condition the connection

between land use and crime.

Resident-Generated Territorial

Signage

Resident-generated signs of caring and proprietorship signal to

other residents and to outsiders that people living there care, are

vigilant about what happens on the street, and are willing to intervene if needed. Studies to date suggest that the territorial perspective may be more relevant to the goals of fear reduction and

3. The authors are indebted to Angela Taylor for this suggestion.
15

bolstering neighborhood confidence than to crime prevention

per se.

The theory focuses on street block dynamics and explains how

territorial functioning contributes to the smooth running of ongoing residential behavior settings (Brower, 1980; Taylor, 1988,

chapter 6). Residents and outsiders alike interpret territorial

markers as clues to how residents will act in different situations.

Evidence supporting this perspective includes several crosssectional studies linking territorial markers, local social involvement, and control over nearby public spaces (Brower, 1988;

Greenbaum and Greenbaum, 1981). Residents perceive that

stronger markers indicate a safer environment: the more threatening the environment, the more markers required to make residents feel safe (Brower, Dockett, and Taylor, 1983).

Practical implications. In keeping with defensible space ideas,

planners and designers want to create delimited, semipublic

spaces that can easily be overseen by residents. The current

boom in urban gardening on vacant lots in inner-city neighborhoods testifies to what people can do with a space they are allowed to manage. The garden gives them a reason to keep an

eye out on the street and involves them more in the neighborhood.

In addition, officials may want to publicly support local initiatives that encourage resident-based territorial strategies. Many

local community groups already promote extensive efforts to

encourage residents to get involved with cleanup and beautification. Local officials do not want to “take over” these activities.

Nevertheless, community groups and residents may be appreciative if officials recognize and support the contributions they are

making to create safer blocks and overall neighborhood

viability.

The territorial approach as it relates to disorder is limited in

three ways relevant to crime-related problems. First, it is not yet

understood what happens over time. For example, it is not

known how fear of crime can hamper territorial functioning or

frustrate intervention in a cycle of increasing concern and weakening jurisdiction. Second, it is difficult to separate the relative
16

contributions to fear reduction of the social and cognitive components of territorial functioning from the physical components

emerging from territorial marking. In part, this difficulty

emerges from the close, system-like connections between social,

cognitive, and behavioral components. Finally, it is not clear

how potential offenders respond to territorial signage. Some

research suggests that offenders, such as burglars, attend to it

(Brown, 1985; Brown and Altman, 1983); other studies theorize

that offenders pay attention to different features of house and

block context (Bennett and Wright, 1984).

Controlling Physical Deterioration

and Disorder

In the 1970’s, one researcher proposed that what really made

people afraid in cities and concerned about their welfare was not

only the crimes they saw and heard about but also the physical

and social signs they saw around them that indicated a breakdown in society (J.Q. Wilson, 1975). Another researcher called

these indicators “signs of incivility.” He argued that such signs

made people feel vulnerable because they suggested to residents

that the public officials and agencies charged with maintaining

order were incapable or unconcerned about following through

(Hunter, 1978).

Two researchers then framed the concept of incivilities longitudinally and considered how offenders might respond to signs of

incivility (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). They discussed these dynamics in the context of community policing. Their broken windows thesis, depicted in exhibit 3, suggests the following chain

of events:

• Physical deterioration, wear and tear, and large-scale accumulations of graffiti and trash routinely occur in many older, urban

neighborhoods. If, however, people or agencies do not do anything for a significant period about such deterioration or accumulations, residents and shop personnel working in the

neighborhood feel increasingly vulnerable.
17

• Feeling more concerned for their personal safety, residents and

store personnel participate less in the maintenance of order in

public places. They are less likely to stop teens or adults who are

“messing around,” “being rowdy,” or “hassling people.”

• Sensing fewer “eyes on the street” (Jacobs, 1961, 1968), delinquent preteens and teens in the neighborhood become

emboldened and harass or vandalize more frequently. Increasingly convinced they can get away with it, delinquents commit

more minor crimes, and youths become increasingly disorderly.

• Residents, sensing that some local youths are becoming increasingly troublesome, withdraw further from the public spaces

in the neighborhood and become more concerned about protecting their own person and property.

• At this point, potential offenders from outside the neighborhood sense the locale is vulnerable. They are drawn into the

neighborhood because crimes committed there will be less likely

to be detected and responded to. The neighborhood crime rate

increases dramatically.

Another researcher suggested that incivilities may spur subsequent neighborhood decline because the consequences noted

above lead ultimately to resident out-migration (Skogan, 1986;

Exhibit 3. Broken Windows Thesis

Increase in Unrepaired

Physical Deterioration

Increased Concern

for Personal Safety

Among Residents

and Proprietors

Decreased

Participation

in Maintaining

Order on the Street

Increased Delinquency, Rowdiness,

Vandalism, and Disorderly Behavior

Among Locals

Further Increases in Deterioration;

Further Withdrawal from Streets

by Residents and Other Locals

Potential Offenders from Outside the Neighborhood,

Attracted by Vulnerability, Move into Locale
18

1990:2). He proposed the following scenario: Vandalism, abandoned buildings, and other evidence of disrepair may be contagious, stimulating additional disregard for property by attracting

potential offenders. The neighborhood declines, sometimes more

quickly than would otherwise be the case. The decline may be

manifested as increasing vacancy rates, higher conversion rates

from owner-occupied to rental properties, more dramatic

changes in ethnic or racial composition of residents or store

owners, or changes in the socioeconomic status of residents.

These ideas have garnered significant attention from urban theorists and policy planners despite some limitations (Greene and

Taylor, 1988). What sound empirical evidence is there that links

physical deterioration or signs of incivility with crime, fear of

crime, or increases in either?

Cross-sectional studies on signs of disorder, crime, and fear

have generated different results, depending upon the unit of

analysis and the type of measures used (Miethe, 1995). Studies

using residents’ perceptions of incivilities have found more consistent effects than studies based on onsite ratings of physical

features, and studies using street blocks generally have provided

more consistent results than studies using neighborhoods.4

 In

neighborhoods where physical deterioration is more widespread,

residents have been more fearful when the future of that neighborhood has appeared uncertain (Taylor, Shumaker, and

Gottfredson, 1985). The effects of neighborhood deterioration

on residents’ fear levels is weakened somewhat when deterioration has reached a high level (Taylor and Shumaker, 1990).

Extensive research has linked perceptions of physical deterioration and social incivilities with fear of crime and other outcomes

relevant to neighborhood viability (Lewis and Maxfield, 1980;

Skogan, 1990). For example, one study found effects of an incivilities index on perceived crime problems, fear at night, and

robbery victimization while controlling for neighborhood poverty, stability, and minority status (Skogan, 1990:193–194).

4. This conclusion is closely parallel to but somewhat more sanguine than Miethe’s

(1995:21): “[T]he empirical evidence on the direct and indirect impact of measures of

neighborhood incivilities on individuals’ fear of crime is inconclusive.”
19

Both onsite assessments of incivilities and resident perceptions

of the incivilities have contributed independently to residents’

concerns for personal safety (Covington and Taylor, 1991). This

suggests that extant deterioration may make residents more fearful even when they do not express concern about the problems.

Studies of neighborhoods or blocks over time have provided some

support for the incivilities thesis. Researchers investigated effects of

indirect indicators of physical deterioration and social disorder in

Washington, D.C., and Cleveland, Ohio. Prior crime rates predicted

subsequent neighborhood risk of burglary, robbery, and assault in

Washington and Cleveland across periods of 2 to 5 years. Home

ownership, which presumably reflects commitment to maintaining

the appearance and value of the property as well as social stability

and low turnover, did not predict subsequent risk for high rates of

burglary, robbery, or assault independently of prior crime levels.

Other indicators of neighborhood decay, however, added significantly to risk prediction based only on prior crime rates. Since arson

and delinquency often leave visible scars that act as cues to social

and physical incivilities in decaying neighborhoods, arson and delinquency rates predicted changes in neighborhood burglary risk.

Family poverty, previously associated with neighborhood disorder

(Skogan, 1990), predicted risk of high assault rates in Washington

neighborhoods and high robbery rates in Cleveland neighborhoods

independently of earlier crime levels (Harrell and Gouvis, 1994).

Physical changes appear to precede crime changes. Using groupings of Los Angeles census tracts and studying them for several

decades, researchers found that patterns of owner-to-rental conversion, land use changes, and abandonment predicted the emergence of hardened high-crime areas. The connection remained

after controlling for changes in the types of people living there

(Schuerman and Kobrin, 1986).

In short, depending upon neighborhood context and other factors, physical deterioration and indirect indicators partially reflecting deterioration appear to be linked to resident fear levels

and changing crime rates.

Across street blocks, one study suggested stronger, less conditional connections between incivilities and perceptions of crime-
20

related problems. A study of 50 Baltimore street blocks found

that assessed physical deterioration contributed to the perception

of social problems and crime problems on particular blocks after

controlling for block layout, stability, and class (Perkins, Meeks,

and Taylor, 1992).

Neighborhood- and block-level results thus indicate connections

between physical deterioration, features presumably related to

deterioration, or perceptions of deterioration and crime-related

problems, crime, or changes in crime. This conclusion, however,

rests on a small number of studies. It also ignores divergent perspectives on what constitutes acceptable measures of physical

deterioration or incivilities.

Implications. There are several implications of such a link. Local planners and officials, if they think that a locale is “at risk”

of experiencing sharply higher crime, could work to coordinate

housing, zoning, and sanitation personnel in an effort to prevent

or slow increases in physical deterioration and housing abandonment (Taylor and Covington, 1990). Such efforts might block

the emergence of higher crime rates, higher fear levels, or declining commitment to the community.

For example, in a partially gentrified neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland, local leaders urged city personnel to move

quickly and “cap” several private, abandoned properties in danger of serious deterioration. According to one leader, the city

failed to respond despite several months of repeated requests

from the association. The walls of one of the targeted properties

finally collapsed into an alley. Alleviation of large-scale deterioration may lead to stronger neighborhood commitment.

Limitations. At the same time, what is known has serious limitations.

• It is not known if changes in physical deterioration and incivilities occur independently of, or simply reflect, neighborhood

structural change. Due to ecological processes and social, political, and economic factors, neighborhoods naturally change in

three ways: socioeconomic status increases or decreases; stability, reflected in the balance of owners vs. renters, shifts; and the
21

racial and age composition changes (Hunter, 1974; Taylor and

Covington, 1988). Do changes in physical incivilities merely

reflect these structural changes, or do the physical changes

emerge independently of these structural changes? The answer

to this question has important policy as well as theoretical implications. For example, suppose physical incivility changes simply

reflect socioeconomic status changes.5 For the long-term purpose of preventing crimes that are already increasing in a neighborhood, it may be more important to provide jobs to residents

than to renovate housing.

• At any one point in time, physical incivilities are closely connected to other neighborhood features. For example, blocks with

more incivilities also contain a higher proportion of nonresidential land uses (Taylor, Koons, Kurtz, and Greene, in press). It is

not yet known if land use mix is more influential in increasing

crime than are levels of physical deterioration.

• Little is known about how potential offenders “read” physical

incivilities, a key aspect of the broken windows thesis (Wilson

and Kelling, 1982). Presumably, offenders from outside read the

level of deterioration and base their invasion of a locale partly

on those features. Burglars carefully read the environment

around contemplated targets (Rengert and Wasilchick, 1985).

But it is not known specifically how much attention burglars or

other offenders pay to physical deterioration.

• Decreasing deterioration also can be problematic. Studies in

Britain and the United States suggest that improved physical

environments, such as those found in gentrifying neighborhoods,

also may be troublesome and associated with higher crime (Bottoms and Wiles, 1986; Covington and Taylor, 1989). Potential

offenders inside or outside the location may infer from physical

upkeep that more potentially lucrative targets are available for

such crimes as larceny and robbery. A key issue influencing

such an outcome may be whether a large pool of motivated, potential offenders is extremely close by.

5. Skogan (1990:173) reports a correlation of .84 between his disorder index and

neighborhood unemployment rates.
22

Pending Issues

A fair amount is known about designing and redesigning locations so that a setting’s physical features—given certain social

and cultural conditions—help discourage crime or make residents or users feel less vulnerable (Crowe, 1991). There are numerous cross-sectional links at the community and street block

level and some links over time between physical environment

features and these outcomes. Nevertheless, numerous practical

and theoretical questions remain about what works in specific

situations and why.

• The sequence of relationships between physical change,

crime events, fear of crime, and perceptions of place vulnerability is not well understood. Does physical decay precede

and predict worsening crime rates, is the reverse more generally

true, or does it depend? If one factor depends on the others, on

what other characteristics of the setting do these processes rely?

Where in these processes do residents’ feelings of vulnerability

and behavioral withdrawal from street life come into play?

• How do social, cultural, and organizational features contribute to the success of crime reduction through physical

environment modifications? Research to date clearly counters

the notion that physical environment features have stand-alone

effects on crime and related problems. Their effectiveness depends on other features of the setting in question, especially local social, cultural, and organizational dynamics. Relations

between neighbors, ethnic composition, and initiatives emerging

from local organizations and churches determine whether physical design or redesign helps reduce crime or related problems,

such as fear of crime. With some exceptions, the specific behavioral and social psychological processes that explain how

physical effects on crime and related problems depend on

nonphysical conditions is not yet understood.

• What is the effect of the larger social, political, and economic environment on the risk of crime, and how do these

broader issues relate to the physical environment features

discussed here? Some types of offenders follow a multistage

planning process that begins with the selection of an area or
23

neighborhood where they feel they can operate comfortably,

with low costs in terms of time and effort, and where they stand

a good chance of obtaining a reward for their efforts (Rengert,

1989). Subsequently, they select blocks, buildings, or persons

within that area (Taylor and Gottfredson, 1986). Features of the

larger environment, such as concentrations of potential offenders

or concentrated poverty (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993a;

Wacquant and Wilson, 1989; Wilson, W.J., 1991), or lack of

political power with limited access to resources (Bursik and

Grasmick, 1993b), influence an area’s locational crime risk. Do

physical features have less crime-preventive benefits in areas

with high-locational crime risk due to their position in the

broader urban ecology? Understanding connections between

urban location and crime-prevention benefits of physical design

or redesign has important practical implications. Such an understanding can help agencies focus scarce resources on sites likely

to produce maximum crime-preventive benefits. If planners have

a choice between two equally needy and qualified locales, they

would probably want to assist efforts at the site where success is

more likely.

• Housing disrepair and vacancy, certain land use patterns,

vandalism, physical layout, and patterns of traffic and pedestrian circulation may increase the risk of crime. What is

the relative importance of these factors? Does their relative importance for crime-prevention purposes depend on the type of

crime in question? Does it depend on other features of the context? What is their relative impact on residents’ perceptions of

safety in the area? How important are the different features, relative to one another, in making the area appealing to potential

offenders?

Conclusion

Research has shown that a wide range of features of the physical

environment at the street block and neighborhood levels have

proven relevant to predicting crime rates and crime-related outcomes, such as fear of crime and neighborhood confidence. In

some of these studies, however, it is difficult to separate the

relative crime-preventive or fear-reducing effects of redesign
24

from the beneficial effects of ongoing local social dynamics or

the organizational development surrounding the redesign effort.

In sum, the relevance of the physical environment appears contingent on a range of nonphysical factors and the type of crime

or crime-related outcome in question.

Research to date has followed four different theoretical perspectives. To the practitioner, these different views on the issue suggest different points and types of intervention. A more powerful

understanding of the relationship between crime and design may

emerge from an integration of these different perspectives.

References

Appleyard, Don. (1981). Livable Streets. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Atlas, R. (1991). “The Other Side of CPTED.” Security Management. March.

Baum, A., A.G. Davis, and J.R. Aiello. (1978). “Crowding and

Neighborhood Mediation of Urban Density.” Journal of Population 1:266–279.

Bennett, T., and J. Wright. (1984). Burglars on Burglary. London: Gower.

Bottoms, A.E., and P. Wiles. (1986). “Housing Tenure and Residential Community Crime Careers in Britain.” In A.J. Reiss, Jr.,

and M. Tonry (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review Of Research,

Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

pp. 101–162.

Brower, S. (1980). “Territory in Urban Settings.” In Altman et

al. (eds.), Human Behavior in the Environment: Advances in

Theory and Research. New York: Plenum, Volume 4.

Brower, S. (1988). Design in Familiar Places: What Makes

Home Environments Look Good. New York: Praeger.
25

Brower, S., K. Dockett, and Ralph B. Taylor. (1983).

“Resident’s Perceptions of Site-level Features.” Environment

and Behavior 15:419–437.

Brown, B.B. (1985). “Residential Territories: Cues to Burglary

Vulnerability.” Journal of Architectural Planning and Research

2:231–243.

Brown, B.B., and I. Altman. (1983). “Territoriality, Defensible

Space, and Residential Burglary: An Environmental Analysis.”

Journal of Environmental Psychology 3:203–220.

Bursik, R.J., Jr., and H.G. Grasmick. (1993a). “Economic Deprivation and Neighborhood Crime Rates, 1960–1980.” Law and

Society Review 27.

Bursik, R.J., Jr., and H.G. Grasmick. (1993b). Neighborhoods

and Crime. New York: Lexington Books.

Clarke, R.V. (1983). “Situational Crime Prevention: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Scope.” In M. Tonry and N. Morris

(eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Volume 4, pp. 225–256.

Clarke, R.V. (ed.). (1992). Situational Crime Prevention. Albany: Harrow and Heston.

Clarke, R.V., and D.B. Cornish. (1985). “Modeling Offenders’

Decisions: A Framework for Research and Policy.” In M. Tonry

and N. Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of

Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Volume 6.

Covington, J., and Ralph B. Taylor. (1989). “Gentrification and

Crime: Robbery and Larceny Changes in Appreciating Baltimore Neighborhoods in the 1970’s.” Urban Affairs Quarterly

25:142–172.

Covington, J., and Ralph B. Taylor. (1991). “Fear of Crime in

Urban Residential Neighborhoods: Implications of Between and

Within-Neighborhood Sources for Current Models.” The Sociological Quarterly 32:231–249.
26

Crowe, T.D. (1991). Crime Prevention Through Environmental

Design: Applications of Architectural Design and Space Management Concepts. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Fisher, Bonnie, and Jack L. Nasar. (1992). “Fear of Crime in

Relation to Three Exterior Site Features: Prospect, Refuge, and

Escape.” Environment and Behavior 24:35–65.

Fowler, F., and T. Mangione. (1986). “A Three-pronged Effort

to Reduce Crime and Fear of Crime: The Hartford Experiment.”

In D. Rosenbaum (ed.), Community Crime Prevention. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage, pp. 87–108.

Fowler, F., M.E. McCalla, and T. Mangione. (1979). Reducing

Residential Crime and Fear: The Hartford Neighborhood Crime

Prevention Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Frisbie, D., et al. (1978). Crime in Minneapolis. Minneapolis,

MN: Minnesota Crime Prevention Center.

Gardiner, R.A. (1994). Personal communication.

Greenbaum, P.E., and S.D. Greenbaum. (1981). “Territorial Personalization: Group Identity and Social Interaction in a SlavicAmerican Neighborhood.” Environment and Behavior

13:574–589.

Greenberg, S., and W. Rohe. (1986). “Informal Social Control.”

In Ralph B. Taylor (ed.), Urban Neighborhoods: Research and

Policy. New York: Praeger.

Greenberg, S.W., J.R. Williams, and W.R. Rohe. (1982).

“Safety in Urban Neighborhoods: A Comparison of Physical

Characteristics and Informal Territorial Control in High and

Low Crime Neighborhoods.” Population and Environment

5:141–165.

Greene, J.R., and Ralph B. Taylor. (1988). “Community-based

Policing and Foot Patrol: Issues of Theory and Evaluation.” In
27

J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (eds.), Community Policing:

Rhetoric or Reality? New York: Praeger, pp. 195–224.

Harrell, Adele, and C. Gouvis. (1994). “Community Decay and

Crime.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Final report.

Grant NIJ–IJ–CX–K016.

Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic Communities. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Hunter, A. (1978). “Symbols of Incivility.” Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology.

Dallas, Texas.

Jablonsky, T.J. (1993). Pride in the Jungle: Community and Everyday Life in Back of the Yards Chicago. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of the American City.

New York: Vintage.

Jacobs, J. (1968). “Community on the City Streets.” In E.D.

Baltzell (ed.), The Search for Community in Modern America.

New York: Harper and Row, pp. 74–93.

Knutsson, J. (1994). “The Vassapark Project.” Paper presented

at the Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis Conference, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, June.

Kurtz, E., B. Koons, and Ralph B. Taylor. (1995). “Nonresidential Land Use, Informal Resident-based Control, Physical Deterioration, and Calls for Police Service.” Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Academy for Criminal Justice Sciences,

Boston, MA, March.

Lewis, D.A., and M.G. Maxfield. (1980). “Fear in the Neighborhoods: An Investigation of the Impact of Crime.” Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency 17:160–189.

McDougall, H.A. (1993). Black Baltimore: A New Theory of

Community. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
28

McPherson, M., G. Silloway, and D.L. Frey. (1983). Crime,

Fear, and Control in Neighborhood Commercial Centers.

Minneapolis: Minnesota Crime Prevention Center.

Merry, S.E. (1981a). “Defensible Space Undefended: Social

Factors in Crime Control Through Environmental Design.”

Urban Affairs Quarterly 16:397–422.

Merry, S.E. (1981b). Urban Danger: Life in a Neighborhood of

Strangers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Miethe, T. (1995). “Fear and Withdrawal from Urban Life.”

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

539:14–27.

Newman, Oscar. (1972). Defensible Space. New York:

Macmillan.

Newman, Oscar, and Karen Franck. (1980). Factors Influencing

Crime and Instability in Urban Housing Developments.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Newman, Oscar, and Karen Franck. (1982). “The Effects of

Building Size on Personal Crime and Fear of Crime.” Population and Environment 5:203–220.

Perkins, D.D., P. Florin, R.C. Rich, A. Wandersman, and D.M.

Chavis. (1990). “Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residential Blocks: Crime and Community Context.” American Journal of Community Psychology 18:83–115.

Perkins, D.D., J.W. Meeks, and Ralph B. Taylor. (1992). “The

Physical Environment of Street Blocks and Resident Perceptions

of Crime and Disorder: Implications for Theory and Measurement.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 12:21–34.

Rengert, G.F. (1989). “Spatial Justice and Criminal Victimization.” Justice Quarterly 6:543–564.
29

Rengert, G., and J. Wasilchick. (1985). Suburban Burglary.

Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Roncek, D.W., and R. Bell. (1981). “Bars, Blocks, and Crime.”

Journal of Environmental Systems 11:35–47.

Roncek, D.W., and D. Faggiani. (1985). “High Schools and

Crime: A Replication.” The Sociological Quarterly 26:491–505.

Schuerman, L., and S. Kobrin. (1986). “Community Careers in

Crime.” In A.J. Reiss and M. Tonry (eds.), Crime and Justice: A

Review of Research, Communities and Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 67–100.

Skogan, Wes. (1986). “Fear of Crime and Neighborhood

Change.” In A.J. Reiss, Jr., and M. Tonry (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Communities and Crime. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 230, Volume 8, p. 203.

Skogan, Wes. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Cities. New York: Free Press.

Taylor, Ralph B. (1988). Human Territorial Functioning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Ralph B., and J. Covington. (1988). “Neighborhood

Changes in Ecology and Violence.” Criminology 26:553–589.

Taylor, Ralph B., and J. Covington. (1990). “Ecological Change,

Changes in Violence, and Risk Prediction.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5:164–175.

Taylor, Ralph B., and S.D. Gottfredson. (1986). “Environmental

Design, Crime, and Prevention: An Examination of Community

Dynamics.” In A.J. Reiss and M. Tonry (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Communities and Crime. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, pp. 387–416.

Taylor, Ralph B., S.D. Gottfredson, and S.N. Brower. (1980).

“The Defensibility of Defensible Space.” In T. Hirschi and
30

M. Gottfredson (eds.), Understanding Crime. Beverly Hills:

Sage.

Taylor, Ralph B., S.D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower. (1984).

“Block Crime and Fear: Local Social Ties and Territorial Functioning.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

21:303–331.

Taylor, Ralph B., B. Koons, E. Kurtz, and J. Greene. (In press).

“Physical Deterioration and Nonresidential Land Use: Confirmatory Factor Analyses in Two Cities.” Urban Affairs Review

(formerly Urban Affairs Quarterly).

Taylor, Ralph B., E. Kurtz, and B. Koons. (1994). “Block-level

Connections Between Land Use Arrangements, Physical Deterioration, and Crime.” Paper presented at the Third International

Meeting on Situational Crime Prevention, Rutgers University,

Newark, NJ, June.

Taylor, Ralph B., and S.A. Shumaker. (1990). “Local Crime as a

Natural Hazard: Implications for Understanding the Relationship

Between Disorder and Fear of Crime.” American Journal of

Community Psychology 18:619–642.

Taylor, Ralph B., S.A. Shumaker, and S.D. Gottfredson. (1985).

“Neighborhood-level Links Between Physical Features and Local Sentiments: Deterioration, Fear of Crime, and Confidence.”

Journal of Architectural Planning and Research 2:261–275.

Wacquant, L.J.D., and W.J. Wilson. (1989). “The Cost of Racial

and Class Exclusion in the Inner City.” Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 105:8–25.

Weisel, D.L., C. Gouvis, and A.V. Harrell. (1994). “Addressing

Community Decay and Crime: Alternative Approaches and Explanations.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Final report

submitted to the National Institute of Justice.

White, G.F. (1990). “Neighborhood Permeability and Burglary

Rates.” Justice Quarterly 7:57–68.
31

Wilson, James Q. (1975). Thinking about Crime. New York:

Basic.

Wilson, James Q., and George Kelling. (1982). “Broken Windows.” Atlantic Monthly 211:29–38.

Wilson, W.J. (1991). “Studying Inner City Dislocations: The

Challenge of Public Agenda Research.” American Sociological

Review 56:1–14.

Ycaza, C. (1992). “Crime Rate Drops in Shores.” The Miami

Herald, May 17.
32

Selected NIJ Publications About

Crime Prevention Through

Environmental Design

Listed below are some recent NIJ publications related to issues

of crime prevention through environmental design. These publications are free and can be obtained from the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service: telephone 800–851–3420, or e-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.aspensys.com, or write to NCJRS, Box 6000,

Rockville, MD 20849–6000.

These documents can also be downloaded through the NCJRS

Bulletin Board System or at the NCJRS Anonymous FTP site in

ASCII or graphic formats. They can be viewed online at the Justice Information Center World Wide Web site. Call NCJRS for

more information.

Please note that when free publications are out of stock, they are

available as photocopies or through interlibrary loan.

Fleissner, Dan, and Fred Heinzelmann, Ph.D., Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design and Community Policing, Research in Action, 1995, NCJ 157308.

Gordon, Corely L., and William Brill, The Expanding Role of

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Premises

Liability, Research in Brief, 1995, NCJ 157309.

Smith, Mary S., Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in Parking Facilities, Research in Action, 1995, NCJ

157310.