See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/255461816

Design Out Crime? Using Practice-based Models of the Design Process

Article  in  Crime Prevention and Community Safety · October 2004

DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140200

CITATIONS READS
12 452

2 authors:

Lorraine Gamman Tim Pascoe

University of the Arts London Griffin Research & Consultancy
32 PUBLICATIONS   653 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bikeoff View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lorraine Gamman on 22 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design Out Crime? Reviewing
Practice-based Models of the Design Process

1
Lorraine Gamman and Tim Pascoe

Dr. Lorraine Gamman is employed as Reader in Design Context, in the School of Graphic and Industrial
Design at CSM. She is also a director of DOCA, the Designing Out Crime Association. She wrote her PhD
on shoplifting at Middlesex University, taught product design for ten years and currently directs the
practice based Design Against Crime Research Initiative, which she set up at Central Saint Martins in 2000.
Her publications include Gone Shopping, the Story of Shirley Pitts, Queen of Thieves (Penguin 1996, film
rights sold to Channel 4 in 1997) and the CD Rom In the Bag, (2000 available from the Home Office Crime
Reduction website). She has published widely on visual culture, has an interest in street furniture as well as
packaging and its representation. Her work has attracted research funding from the Arts Humanities
Research Board, the Design Council, the Home Office and the Department of Health.

Dr Tim Pascoe currently works as a Director and Business Development Manager of PRCI a crime and
security consultancy and a ‘spin out’ company from the University of Leicester. Tim specialises in
carrying out qualitative and quantitative research investigating community safety issues and crime
prevention measures. The main thrust of the research has been the evaluation of current guidance on crime
prevention and the development of a method of risk assessment for crimes to enable the selection of the
most appropriate package of crime prevention measures. This work which has been carried out with a
number of bodies including police forces, local authorities, government departments, insurance companies,
etc. has resulted in a publication record which has added to the understanding of the problems and
solutions. He has been working in these areas since 1989, and this experience has intensified since he
moved to PRCI. In addition, he is a founder-member and current Chairman of DOCA-UK (the Design Out
Crime Association), an International Director of the ICA (the International CPTED Association), and an
external examiner for the Home Office Crime Reduction Centre. He is also a member of Cranfield
Management Association; Serves on BSI working group - B/209/10/2 - Security of Buildings Against
Crime Parts 1-3; UK nominated expert to serve on CEN/TC 325/WG2/ Prevention of Crime by Urban
Planning & Building Design - Area Planning; Chairman for CEN/TC 325/WG3/ Prevention of Crime by
Urban Planning & Building Design - Individual buildings.

This paper compares and contrasts design models associated with ‘design against crime’ and
‘crime prevention through environmental design’, so that professionals can better understand,
as well as use, each other’s methodologies and practices. It teases out the differences between
the models of design linked to crime prevention for consumer markets, on the one hand, and on
the other for social housing and public space, where building regulations and other public-
sector drivers have some sway. The paper is divided into two sections, both of which question
what is meant when the word ‘design’ is used by these different methodologies.
 Key Words: Design Against Crime; Designing Out Crime; Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design; social responsive design; ethical design; design models; design process;
situational

Design against crime as a practice-based research methodology?

Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design (CSM) has been at the cutting edge of developing ‘design
against crime’ (DAC). It has attracted significant funding partners, and has delivered design resources
2
(Gamman, 2001) and design benchmarks aimed at fighting crime. The CSM DAC methodology is different
3
from other anti-crime projects in that it is concerned with practice-based research which aims to show
people, as well as tell them, how to ‘design out’ crime. The approach is linked to the creation of case
studies or other visual resource material, and of innovative commercial prototypes or actual products. These
have potential to be tested for their effectiveness in crime reduction via the commercial marketplace, or
under test conditions. Examples of the commercial approach are the ‘Karrysafe’ range of anti-theft bags
and accessories, and the ‘Stop Thief’ furniture research projects, images of which are shown in Figures 1
and 2 and which have been designed to counter common techniques of bag theft.
4
Figure 1. Karrysafe anti-theft designs

Photo: Andrew Hobbs

5
Figure 2. (i) Stop Thief chairs and (ii) new chair design for the All Bar One chain

Photos: Marcus Willcocks

Both projects are linked to commercial outcomes and relate to the designing-out of opportunities for crime
and to other ideas emanating from ‘situational crime prevention’ (Clarke, 1992). They share some of the
common theories that support the ‘crime prevention through environmental design’ (CPTED) approach,
such as ‘opportunity reduction’, or address what Felson (1998) has called the ‘crime triangle’.

In brief, the theory suggests that for a crime to occur a target, an offender and a context are needed, and a
capable ‘guardian’ (or lack of one) can be significant. If the designer can prevent an object or place being
targeted by manipulating opportunities via design planning and design detail, it is possible to prevent the
crime occurring. DAC deals with products, CPTED with places. DAC research at CSM is innovative
because it leads to the creation of new working prototypes and antitheft objects. One such example is the
Karrysafe scroll-top ‘anti-dip bag’ for use in crowded spaces: it helps to deter pickpockets, as its material is
difficult to slash and its scroll-top design means there is little opportunity for thieving fingers slyly to open
the bag to remove valuables while the owner is distracted.

DAC and CPTED have different understandings of the word ‘design’, and the notion that the artefact is
central to communication of the research process is perhaps more typical of design-focused research.
CPTED tends to favour the theoretical approach, as well as an engineering definition of design, which
Booch has summarised as follows:

The approach that engineering (and some other) disciplines use to specify how to create or do something.
A successful design must satisfy a (perhaps informal) functional specification (do what it was designed to
do); [it] conforms to the limitations of the target medium (it is possible to implement); [and it] meets
implicit or explicit requirements on performance and resource usage (it is efficient enough). A design
may also have to satisfy restrictions on the design process itself, such as its length or cost, or the tools
available for doing the design. [In the software life-cycle] design follows requirements analysis and is
6
followed by implementation.

If CPTED favours a solutions-based methodology, it does not always investigate how the people who live
with it view the solution. The CPTED approach has produced, from the viewpoint of the design profession,
workable but aesthetically poor designs. DAC attempts to embrace user-centred, socially responsive
solutions, where aesthetic and successful design is of prime importance because it is not only linked to
crime reduction but also to market-based success.

Can a practice-based approach to DAC research offer new paths for innovation?
What can be learned from comparing and contrasting the models? To situate DAC research, it makes sense
first to try to describe the usual design process. To summarise, designers who wish to create new designs
often draw upon internal processes (see diagram, Figure 3), which means engaging with their own creative
and often intuitive working methods, to help to define the problem or design question. In terms of DAC,
creativity might have originally been prompted by checklists and tool kits that are subsequently
internalised. These are linked to what Paul Ekblom (2000) has called ‘the conjunction of criminal
opportunity’ (CCO), which asks designers to review specific questions about crime problems, stakeholders,
7
etc, in order to consider potential interventions. Design interventions are also subject to similar
formulation, which may also be internalised. Design training helps to develop and structure internal
processes. Education focuses on ‘professional practice’, so expectations and knowledge from the business
workplace about what must occur efficiently at significant stages of design (see diagram, Figure 4) are also
learned.

Figure 3. The internal creative process of design

 Figure 4. External productive process of design

Developing concepts that fulfil given objectives

Structural development of the most suitable concept

Confirming precise specifications and production processes

Manufacturing the product or providing the service

Source: Cooper and Press (1995)

8
The above processes are common to innovation, but with DAC the tool-kit checks are formally responded
to at the concept, embodiment and detail-reduction stages mentioned above (in relation to the way the
crime problem is defined, addressed and resolved). Reading Ekblom on CCO, it appears that he values the
prompts (summarised in footnotes) because he does not think that designers can make effective crime
problem translations intuitively. He suggests that in using his prompts ‘practitioners act less like
technicians applying fixed remedies and more like creative but professionally disciplined consultants’
(Ekblom, 2000:2, emphasis added).

The DAC approach certainly encourages the designer to engage with the problem/cause/ intervention
rationale, but significantly also draws upon interdisciplinary references. The designer’s primary job is to
understand the interface of the product and the opportunities for interaction from the point of view of many
types of users, as well as crime perpetrators and victims, and to try and think ‘out of the box’. User
flexibility should always be foremost in the designer’s mind, even when trying to build anti-crime
modifications or up-gradability into products to deal with potential crime problems of the future, and for
this reason anthropological and psychological perspectives, and those from other disciplines, are important
too.

The main difference between DAC and some other types of product design is that the DAC approach is not
9
only interdisciplinary in focus but is also human-centred and addresses user experience. Here again, we can
make a direct comparison with CPTED, which is interdisciplinary and based on some user experience
research. The difference is that DAC tries to incorporate user experience into the new product in order to
create generic products for international markets. CPTED relies on a research evidence pool and on
‘practitioner’ experience to inform local interventions funded by the public sector. DAC encourages
designers to look at research from many disciplines before undertaking interviews to learn about the
experience of previous users (and abusers), or of potential users/abusers of new products, in order to decide
what typical understandings can be built in as generic features. It values the research stage and encourages
many levels of creative visualisation. These visualisation techniques are common to design and could be
more widely used and useful to CPTED practitioners, as discussed later.
The interaction model of the design process, associated with companies such as the design consultancy
IDEO (Myerson, 2001), has been adapted by DAC at CSM to address experience not just of the ‘use’ but
also of the ‘abuse’ (or ‘misuse’) of products. When considering the actions of the user we refer to ‘use’ and
‘misuse’. The latter describes the ‘wrong’ or ‘adaptive’ use of the object(s) concerned, which may be
positive or negative depending on the measurement scales at work. Abuse of the object(s) in our account
defines criminal behaviour; so mobile telephone ‘jacking’ will be viewed by the DAC designer as abuse,
not only because it is caused by a criminal perpetrator but also because it is linked to a flaw in the handset
design—which allows it to be re-used by another; furthermore, the terms of the design of the whole service
10
provision may encourage criminality. Most importantly, DAC visualises problems of use, misuse and
abuse as they emanate from the field. The first stage would normally include a visual review of competing
products on the market, or of failed design or technological interventions of a significant kind. DAC tries to
address crime by designing out design flaws linked to objects, technologies and services, and to
11
opportunities for crime to occur. Ken Pease has compared the DAC focus on abuse and misuse scenarios to
the ‘all systems’ approach in the analysis of air crashes, ie what the factors are which, if different, would
have prevented the event (crash, crime) happening. This process has been described as ‘iterative’, defined
in Webster’s dictionary as ‘involving repetition: as … expressing repetition of a verbal action … [or]
relating to or being iteration of an operation or procedure’. Preece et al provide a full description of the
design process:

… cycling through various design processes at different levels of detail. Primarily it involves: thinking
through a design problem; understanding the users’ [abusers’/mis-users’] needs [desires], coming up with
possible conceptual models, prototyping them, evaluating them with respect to usability [abusability] and
user [abuser] experience goals, thinking about the design implication of the evaluation studies, making
changes to the prototypes with respect to these, evaluating the changed prototype [linked to anti-crime
functionality], thinking through whether the changes have improved the interface and iteration and so on.
Interaction design may also require going back to the original data to gather and check the requirement.
Throughout the iterations, it is important to think through and understand whether the conceptual model
being developed is working in the way intended and to ensure that it is supporting the user’s tasks ...
[without helping abusers/mis-users]. (2002:7)

The difference between the DAC model and traditional interaction or user models is that it draws on anti-
crime thinking as well as on commercial aspects as a potential catalyst in generating design innovation.
Three main steps of project management inform the setting-up process: What are you going to do? How are
you going to do it? How will you know when you’ve done it? The point is to obtain, where possible, expert
feedback and criticism—linked to timing and budget— from many groups, including crime prevention
specialists, and to ensure that this is fed into all relevant stages of prototyping. The iterative process enables
designers to test out design hypotheses in the context of expert users and a select panel of crime prevention
experts who witness and experience abuse and misuse at a more direct, everyday level.

This iterative process is comparable with CPTED when, for example, a new or refurbished development is
underway. Here, in response to user requirements, an original plan will be put on the table and then
subjected to a process of consultation with the community, as well as to a series of negotiations with parties
such as planners, building control officers, police, developers and so on, until a result, timetable and budget
are agreed. With CPTED practitioners there may be less focus on design and aesthetics than with DAC
practitioners, but both groups engage with the sort of iterations featured in Figure 5, discussed in full in the
next section.
Figure 5. DAC iterative research process: a socially responsive design model

where D = Proposed research intervention(s)

where E = Evaluated interventions
where R = Summary of research findings
where C = Assessment of research findings
Some designers who have worked with DAC have complained that engaging with the above design model
12
is like ‘designing by committee’. This is a view recognised by many CPTED practitioners, who are often
heavily influenced by feedback from ‘consultation’. The iterative model, however, does offer some strong
advantages. The advisory panel process, which has been tested at CSM in respect of two active projects,
necessitates teamwork and helps prevent basic design errors occurring. But advisory inputs need to be set
up correctly as regards the timing of the project and how many iterations can be funded by the budget; not
all advisors can be present at the same time, and the importance and use of strong visual material here
cannot be stressed enough. The process also demands strong time and project management, so that expert
and partnership feedback can be meaningfully addressed and integrated by the design team. The advantage
of this model is that it creates a space for user input to be considered.

Successful applications
As well as generating the ‘Stop Thief’ furniture and the ‘Karrysafe’ anti-bag-theft projects, since 2001 the
output of CSM studios has included student projects which have linked CPTED theory to industrial design
practice. (This material is featured in the Appendix.)

DAC as a practice-based methodology acts as a catalyst by including more than criminological information.
In terms of the CSM MA Industrial Design projects shown in the Appendix, designers were also briefed by
anti-CCTV protesters, fashion designers and graffiti artists, in order to generate innovation. The results
show in the work, and also in designers’ views about CPTED. Many of the designers who participated in
DAC projects at CSM felt that retrofit modifications or new design solutions valued by police were ugly,
and that the word ‘design’ was inappropriate to describe them. It is at this design-focused point that
CPTED practitioners can learn from DAC. The questions CSM designers raise, such as what drivers should
be used to measure ‘appropriate’ or good design against crime, need to be asked about CPTED applications
too, before meaningful anti-crime modifications are made to public spaces. CSM designers argue that many
effective solutions which achieve crime reduction (for example, the Alleygaters project) can simply ‘look
criminal’ and thus increase people’s fear of crime.

Definitions of the word ‘design’ are notoriously slippery. At CSM they are linked to more than the training
of professionals to work out a shape or to form and/or make sketches and plans; they also relate to the
artistic (aesthetic) and highly skilled aspect of the design process linked to ergonomics and the ability to
address users’ needs. Without this sort of skill and ability, the physical appearance of objects may not
work, and may simply increase fear of crime. Worse, while some engineered objects created using
emergent technology currently offer anti-crime functionality, they have ‘design’ problems linked to lack of
ease of use. They rarely achieve the sort of good user/ hardware-interface design achieved for example by
Jonathan Ives’s Apple Mac designs (Essic, 1998), because without the involvement of design professionals
engineered objects are notoriously user-unfriendly, and consequently weak when it comes to inspiring the
public to buy them.

Without design skill and the ability to integrate a strong aesthetic, the appearance of the user-interface of
objects and spaces may promote fear of crime, which might outweigh any crime-reduction achievements.
This point is taken up again below, in the discussion of CPTED methodologies.

What is CPTED as a practice-based research methodology?

Designing out crime is not yet the subject of formal regulation connected with town planning, architecture
13
or building, but some drivers are already in place, for example in the UK. CPTED is based on
criminological and social theories, but is concerned with the practical application of design principles to
crime prevention. It aims to influence and manage crime, anti-social behaviour and fear of crime. It is more
linked to ‘top-down’ regulation than is commonly the case with innovation in the free market or with the
DAC process, yet it still relies on practitioners who implement its aims. As suggested earlier, CPTED tends
to concentrate on the environment rather than the product, but shares some ideas, such as routine activities
theory, with DAC.

The aims of CPTED do in fact correlate with those of DAC innovation. This is because:

When designing new products designers take on board, consciously or unconsciously, factors which
influence their decision making process. These may be classified according to ‘models’, through which
we can gain a better understanding of the design process and the agenda behind it. (Gamman, 2003)

The common factors generated by the built environment are much more fundamental to people’s lives than
those that influence the products they buy: they affect people’s homes, their neighbourhood and their
communities. CPTED as a design methodology offers an important approach to the built environment, one
that looks at user experience and considers it in a socially responsive way. It is, however, a broader process
than the DAC approach, one that embraces social policy linked to community safety and crime prevention
as well as to the bricks and mortar of daily life. As an evolved methodology CPTED is able to deliver:
14
. • proven and developing methodological and creative processes;
. • an iterative process involving review of design concepts for the built environment and
allowing for community input;
15
. • a progressive development strategy linked to design benchmarks that aim to get it right;
and
. • a context-sensitive and flexible tool.

CPTED is similar to DAC in that it engages with iterative processes, but as Ekblom (2003) points out it can
include a whole series of potential crime control systems: planning, design, construction, management,
operation, security behaviour and supporting technology—thus multidisciplinary input, output and results,
similar to those of DAC. CPTED also offers arguments and elements of practice linked to issues of
sustainability.
In designing for a context, CPTED practitioners aim to achieve a self-perpetuating, happy equilibrium
between people and the built environment in which they live. The philosophy is that the environment
should be one where people feel comfortable living, working, eating and playing together, where they can
have stable social relationships, and where facilities meet the needs of a vibrant working community.
CPTED as a philosophy offers directions as to how this might be achieved. Facilities are seen to equate
with spaces and buildings. If buildings are poorly designed or maintained, they will attract vandalism and
crime. Spaces are important too: it is clear that when people have too little access to green space, or if they
do not like their homes, they move if they can (just as those who are dissatisfied with a product buy a
different one if they can). If they cannot move they may withdraw behind their front doors, shunning the
world outside, and may develop a ‘fortress mentality’. The political and economic implications are of
course significant in terms of the physical response to the built environment. If buildings and spaces are
sustainable then the community stays: people want to live there. If they do not meet people’s needs, many
social problems arise, which are more complex to deal with than a simple market-led innovation model
could conceptualise.

Designing out crime linked to public-sector factors has, for obvious reasons, developed ‘outside of’ notions
about innovation, even if there are common features. Members of the Design Out Crime Association
(DOCA) have different approaches, which as an organisation it supports, eg it currently favours a
multiplicity of strategies and/or methodologies linked to crime reduction. DOCA does not accept a simple
approach that might have been prevalent in its previous philosophies. In the past, the idea of protecting the
built environment was dominant, focusing on the building envelope and consisting primarily of advice
about how to install bars and bolts to ensure security. The association’s new philosophy and its seminars
reflect change; it is currently developing complex ideas about what defines ‘happy’ and ‘sustainable’
communities. In what follows we try to summarise the developments in our thinking, and articulate this in
the context of selected CPTED models of design that are part of DOCA members’ practice and remit.
Secured by design
The traditional view of security has been that of ‘target-hardening’ to defend buildings. In the UK, there is
a connection with the police via the ‘secured by design’ (SBD) scheme. This scheme took security beyond
just locks, bars and bolts (however important these are) to offer modern and progressive ideas about
fortification. It has been aimed at house builders and architects as well as the general public. In essence, the
scheme could provide the builder or architect with a certificate stating that the house or development, if it
16
had incorporated all the SBD ideas and criteria, had met with police approval with respect to security.

SBD has led to a reduction in fear of crime and in some types of crime (Armitage, 1999; Brown, 1999;
Pascoe, 1999), and to that extent has been a great success; but it offers only a very basic set of criteria,
rather than a clear methodology. These criteria aim at explaining what works best for security on doors and
windows, linked to a discussion of associated hardware. SBD also provides an expert review in the form of
17
the local police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) or Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA). The
quality of that ‘expert’ review will depend on the skills and experience of the advisors, who are located in
specific geographical and police regions. At best, SBD offers the rudiments of the philosophy of crime
prevention through environmental design, but it has lacked sophistication, strong design components or
aesthetic understanding.

Despite the expert review involved in the process, the SBD remit is restrictive in terms of flexibility and the
parameters of the built environment it can address. Ekblom suggests that:
Simplistic, ‘cookbook’ solutions are not guaranteed to work – practitioners need to proceed through an
intelligent process of obtaining information on crime problems and risk and selecting and customising
interventions according to problem and context.(2003:8)

Ekblom also argues that any model for crime prevention needs to be flexible. It has to have a combination
of generic principles that apply across a range of circumstances, as well as practical elements that can
address site-specific issues. He provides the following example.

The strategy of alley gating applies the principle of creating a target enclosure in place of an open back
alley; the specific method is the alley-gate itself; the detailed knowledge includes the need for the gate to
fit top and bottom; and the very detailed knowledge includes the requirement to galvanise the base.
(2003:4)

As has been argued in the section on DAC above, within the CPTED knowledge base we need to include
understanding of aesthetic and human user interfaces. A number of models have evolved along the SBD
path, and they also fit under the wider umbrella of linked CPTED models. They include the following.

CPTED risk assessment model. Saville and colleagues have developed a systematic and comprehensive
process to determine the potential problems that an urban development site might experience (Saville and
Wright, 1998; see also Atlas, 2002). This model tries to address the need for flexibility of approach, as
raised by Ekblom (2003). Saville et al argue that the key for a successful CPTED model is to collect data,
to identify in the context such factors as historic crime issues, community desires, potential targets and
crime generators. Second, the method formalises the process of gathering research into a model that others
can use, rather than leaving the process to one or two expert reviews based on different data sets.

Saville’s ‘CPTED Risk Assessment Guide’ breaks down the process into six categories, using a
combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to assign his measurement scales:

1. A very small scale of development, before construction has begun.

2. A very small scale of development, after construction has finished. There may be plans for
redevelopment, or requests for help in resolving ongoing problems on the site.

3. A medium-to-small scale of development, before construction (perhaps of a new townhouse

complex or an urban park).
4. A medium scale of development, after construction has finished.

5. A very large scale of development, before construction has begun. This is also at the most
complex level of CPTED review, and normally an independent report would be prepared.

6. A very large scale of development, after construction has finished. This is the most complex level
of CPTED review, and normally an independent CPTED report would be prepared. It is essentially the
same as category 5 above except that a safety audit is included (since there is now a site to audit). The risk
assessment at this level should include site visits, and local knowledge is absolutely crucial to the process.
The collaborative research process includes users of the new development, local residents, the developer
and architects, the police and other relevant bodies.

The essence of this approach is therefore building the best picture from data. Of course, as context is key
methods can be ‘picked and mixed’ for each individual location. Evaluation afterwards is also necessary to
model-building and judging success. The following table has been adapted from Atlas and Saville, and
suggests appropriate methods.

Table 1. Crime risk assessment guide

Small scale Medium scale Large scale

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6
Before After Before After Before After
the fact the fact the fact the fact the fact the fact

CPTED review of plans Y Y Y Y Y Y

Assess current crime trends Y Y Y Y Y Y

Assess stakeholders Y Y Y Y Y Y
What are current problems –
crime
or other issues? Y Y Y Y Y Y
Does design fit designated use? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Assess adjacent land use Y Y Y Y

Assess lighting Y Y Y Y Y Y
Review landscaping Y Y Y Y Y
Advisory design panel Y Y
Partnerships with planners, owners,
task forces, Crime & Disorder
Partnerships Y Y Y Y
Site visits Y Y Y Y Y
Interviews/surveys Y Y Y Y Y Y

Personal interviews Y Y Y Y
Telephone questionnaires Y Y
Field observation Y Y Y
Large-scale, after-the-fact
focus groups Y

Town meetings Y
Community planning/design
workshops/planning for real Y Y

Analysis of marketing studies Y Y Y Y

Statistical data collection Y Y Y Y
Socio-economic data Y Y Y Y Y Y
Demographic and mobility
Y Y Y Y
forecasts
Assess crime and movement
generators Y Y Y Y Y Y
Assess impact of entrapment
areas and activity generators Y Y Y Y
Assess sight lines/visibility/
car distance Y Y Y Y Y Y
Assess defensible space and
space hierarchy Y Y Y Y Y Y
Assess territoriality/boundary
definition Y Y Y Y Y Y
Assess conflicting user groups Y Y Y Y
Consult difficult-to-reach
Y Y Y Y
groups
Crime analysis, including hot
Y Y Y Y Y
spots Y
Traffic counts/assess desire
lines/
routes Y Y Y Y
Assess public transport route
and
provision Y Y
Traffic patterns and prediction Y Y Y Y
Computerised simulations such
as
GIS or virtual reality Y Y
CPTED literature review for
Y
similar
Make changes based on CPTED
and area knowledge Y Y Y Y Y Y

As can be seen, the above approach provides plenty of opportunity for aesthetic questions to be raised, for
example in consulting potential residents on plans. Some DOCA members would argue that this is already
an inherent part of CPTED practice in medium–to–large developments, and we would not dispute this; but
we do maintain that it is important to show as well as tell, and that photographic evidence of benchmarks,
as well as further discussion of their meaning, would help aid understanding of assertions being made about
CPTED.

Research-based models. Another approach that fits under the broad CPTED umbrella suggests that we can
assess the crime risk on the basis of environmental cues. Early work by Pascoe (1999) produced qualitative
and quantitative models on burglary. The qualitative model showed that burglars used environmental cues
or clues in their decision process when selecting targets— broken windows may signify, on both the
denotative and connotative levels, lack of control by the owner, and therefore communicate ‘easy target’ to
burglars. Building on this work, Pascoe showed that burglaries could be accurately predicted using an
environmental cue model that asks the questions in Figure ??.

Following on from, and supporting, the CPTED research models already summarised, McCamley has
argued that:

[c]rime prevention courses in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Australia have exacerbated
this problem by teaching design prescription and little about empirical diagnosis. In some respects the
process can be likened to a medical system that teaches doctors how to prescribe medication without
teaching them how to diagnose illness. We would find it difficult to imagine a doctor who consistently
prescribed the same selection of pills to patients, for prevention and cure – no matter what the patient’s
age, condition or the causes of complaint. Yet CPTED by numbers remains common practice today.
(2002:26)

McCamley’s solution to the problem he describes above was to offer a ‘CPTED Crime Risk Evaluation
Kit’, a model that takes into account context and the physical and social environment, both quantitatively
and qualitatively (McCamley, 1999). It combines a series of data collection steps to evaluate the risk. These
are:

. • local crime statistics and police intelligence;

. • socio-economic index rating; and
. • a design, space and activity survey, where 139 variables are assessed and scored.

Once an area has been assessed, McCamley’s framework provides guidance on how to interpret the
solution. His methodology is currently being tested and we look forward to the results.

Second-generation or European CPTED. A recent evolution from North America, spearheaded by the
leading CPTED expert Greg Saville, is what he has called ‘second-generation CPTED’. Saville and
Cleveland argue that in the past we have been practising merely physical solutions, which they call ‘first-
generation’ CPTED. They make the case for understanding the social as well as the physical contexts in
which design is to take place:

The most valuable aspects of a safe community lie not in structure of the brick and mortar type, but
rather in structures of family, of thought and, most important, of behaviour. We may benefit from starting
with an examination of the physical aspects of place, but we must end up looking at the social aspect of
home and neighbourhood – the affective environment. (1998:1)

It is difficult to disagree with taking a wider holistic environmental view. There were those among the
audience for Saville’s paper in Amsterdam (2003) who argued that, in Europe, city communities are often
culturally diverse, and that therefore the practice of understanding the social and cultural context of
inhabitation (‘the affective environment’) is commonplace. (Indeed, some commentators went so far as to
suggest that Saville’s ‘second-generation CPTED’ is already known as ‘European CPTED’). Saville is to
be applauded for actually documenting this context-led approach. We share his view that the social context
is extremely important for understanding the cultural specificity of crime. Again, the similarity with DAC
methodology is apparent: a focus on the human interface and market-context factors is common to both
models. The interaction of community and built environment needs to be fully understood before building
begins. To continue this progress we would argue for the incorporation into CPTED of some standard
evaluation and solution methodologies (critical community engagement strategies), ranging from surveys,
focus groups and planning ‘for real’ to long-term panels—used regularly rather than occasionally, as is the
current UK practice. In effect we would utilise the tools of social engagement work. Of course, the same
can be argued for DAC. We note that ‘post-product purchase research’, which could be used by DAC, is
rarely published for academic consumption or conducted outside the commercial environment. This
absence of data makes the research evaluation process, necessitated by the different models we have
described, very useful, as DAC and CPTED practitioners already know.

In order to identify some pragmatic methods that will help individuals address the social and cultural
18
context, Saville directs us to Ron Clarke’s work on ‘situational crime prevention’ (SCP), which gives a
whole series of options and rationales from various territories; this has been useful to designers, as the
proposed solutions are not specified in visual terms, allowing an ambiguity into the account which can aid
the designer’s imagination.
These SCP strategies and tools are extremely useful to both DAC and CPTED practitioners (if more
commonly referred to by the designers among us), but while there is value in not visualising everything,
these strategies lend themselves well to the idea of visualisation, and it would make sense to document the
benchmark. The visualisation process is important not least because it identifies that there are other stages
of work that need to occur, that distinctions may need to be made between appropriate anti-crime
‘specifications’ for a building or product and an appropriate ‘design visualisation’ or potential design
‘solutions’ to or ‘outcomes’ of that brief. It is therefore our recommendation that both DAC and CPTED
practitioners learn to engage with more visualisation strategies, and use them in their daily practice.

Conclusion

In presenting the differences and similarities between DAC and CPTED models in this paper we have tried
to suggest that there are skills and techniques our different schools can share. DAC focuses more on
visualisation techniques and delivering innovation to the marketplace; CPTED focuses more on social
space and models relating to spatial design. But, as Ekblom has stated:

It is unlikely that the causes of crime and disorder events in urban environments simply add to one
another, steadily increasing the risk in a linear fashion. Rather it is the configurations of a range of
factors – environmental conditions such as lines of surveillance and escape, presence of criminally
inclined and motivated offenders, crime targets, and potential defenders of person and property – which
determine quite subtly whether an area will remain tranquil or become a hotspot for crime or disorder.
Likewise the kinds of solutions that work best will be a particular synergic combination of principle and
practical method that fit the configuration. (2003:8)

It is up to both CPTED practitioners and DAC designers to cross-fertilise ideas from these two schools of
thought in order to figure out how best to go forward, and address specific crime ‘configurations’ described
above. While we have tried to show that the DAC and CPTED approaches to practice-based work have a
great deal in common (both areas need visual data, empirical diagnosis and an understanding of both
physical and cultural contexts), in focusing on so many different approaches we have tried to emphasise
different skills and techniques too. Our position is that differences in methods, as well as different
professional skills, need understanding before synthesis occurs. One size will not fit all, and nor can one
philosophy; nor should it. This is why we not only give thanks for our common ground, but also celebrate
diversity: ‘vive la différence’, we say, if it means that in pooling our different skills we go forward
together.
 Appendix. Anti-crime objects for the built environment by MA Industrial Design students,
CSM

Three MA Industrial Design projects have been run at CSM design studios, in 2002, 2003 and 2004. A
selection of design concepts and prototypes generated by CSM students (Figures 1–10) are included here as
examples of projects that tried to link CPTED theory to the creation of designed objects. The work was
created in concept form, as designs for development and possibly licensing, aimed at crime prevention in
the urban environment:

Figure 1. Little Bastards.

© 2002 Christopher Edwards

Little Bastards is a low-cost flexible alarm system: should the ball be disturbed from the window ledge, it
will sound an alarm, which in turn activates all the balls within a certain range.

Figure 2. The Wise Carpet.

© 2002 Ana Luz

The Wise Carpet uses biometrics and piezo-electronics to deliver a ”smart‘ access control and burglar
patrol system.
 Figure 3. Security Blind.

© 2002 Yue Yu Ren

This security blind has been conceived as an alternative to window bars and ”crime mesh‘. Bars are hidden
within the folds of the material, providing protection from crime with a pleasing aesthetic edge.

Figure 4. Bike Brick.

© 2003 Richard Clement

A simple pavement replacement slab to facilitate motorbike parking without compromising pedestrian
space or access. The motorbike‘s chain is inserted into a steel-reinforced space in the slab.

Figure 5. Security Without Walls.

© 2002 John Wischhusen

A peg screws into the ground to secure possessions while camping; larger items are locked to the peg with
the cable and padlock, and the cut-proof bag is used to secure smaller items.

Figure 6. Thread the Bollard.

© 2003 Alex Dalton

Roadside bollards are everywhere, and so are thieves. If a motorbike is locked to one of these bollards,
thieves cannot load it into their van. Also, motorcyclists are rewarded for their eco-friendliness with
convenient places to park.

Figure 7. Public Smoking Space.

© 2003 Jonathan Bruck

Smokers are being banned from indoor spaces. This design explores what a friendly. and even health-
conscious, outdoor smoking site could look like.

Figure 8. Seet: surveillance seating.

© 2003 Lisa Tse

Seet is a public seating system that encourages natural surveillance and hinders bag theft in public areas.

Figure 9. Soft Bin for Hospital Waiting Room

© 2003 Dane Whitehurst and Tang Lung

Target-softening as an approach to designing out crime tackles the problem of hard dustbins being use as
missiles/weapons in hospital A&E waiting rooms. This bin aims to solve this by utilising a soft shell, as
well as an opening mechanism that provides simple and hygienic access and bag disposal, avoiding a
”tough‘ or ”security‘ aesthetic.

Figure 10. Hospital Chair Arm Rest Design – Bag and Coffee Holder.

© 2003 Philip Ho and Tom Shi

This bag security clip and cup holder can be retrofitted to existing chairs, to allow users to protect their
belongings from opportunist thieves in a hospital A&E waiting room. This chair system tackles problems
of bag theft and anti-social behaviour in hospital A&E departments. It provides a designated area for bag
storage that warns the user when the bag is left unattended. The flexible construction and fixed installation
make the chair difficult to use as a weapon or missile.
 Notes

1 Lorraine Gamman is Reader in Design Context in the School of Graphic and Industrial Design, Central Saint
Martins College of Art and Design, London; email: lorraine.gamman@csm.linst.ac.uk. She would like to thank
the Arts Humanities Research Board for the 2004œ5 innovation funding that has enabled the DAC model
referred to in the paper to be formally written up. Tim Pascoe is Business Development Manager, Perpetuity
Research & Consultancy International Ltd, Leicester; email: t.pascoe@perpetuitygroup.com.
2 See www.karrysafe.com; www.designagainstcrime.com.
3 Practice-based research is a disputed topic that has been the subject of much debate and definition; see
Frayling, 1993/4; Strandman, 1998; Buchanan et al, 1999; Korvenmaa, 1999; Biggs, 2000; Durling and
Friedman, 2000; Pizzocaro et al, 2000.
Frayling defined three types of research in art and design: ”research into, research for [ie within] and research
through art and design‘. Practice-based research conforms to his notion of research for (within) art and design;
thus:
Research is where the end product is an artefact œ where thinking is, so to speak, embodied in the
artefact, where the goal is not primarily communicable knowledge in the sense of verbal
communication, but in the sense of visual or iconic or imagistic communication. (1993/4:1)

Scrivener‘s (2002a) account of practice-based research would place-making at the centre of the account. In a
subsequent (unpublished) article he goes on to say:
The practitioner of ”research for design‘ is to design as the researcher is to science and the scholar
to the humanities; one who advances understanding, in this case of how to design‘. (2004)

Another paper by Scrivener (2002b) delivers three useful tables of codes and conventions for the creative
production he discusses: ”Norms of Technology Research Projects‘, ”Relating Creative-production to the
Norms of Problem-solving Research‘ and ”Norms of Creative-production Research Projects‘.
DAC projects at CSM embrace all the features outlined as common in these tables, because the methodologies
of DAC and practice-based research are plural. Also, different individual projects often conform, at the same
time and within the scope of one diverse project, to all three types of definition originally offered by Frayling.
4 See www.karrysafe.com.
5 See www.designagainstcrime.com/researchprojects.
6 In explaining precisely what a design is, the UK Patent office points out that it
cannot register designs which are: concerned only with how a product works, or for
parts of complex products that are not visible in normal use, or contrary to law or
morality.

The Patent Office definition of design suggests that:

A registered design is a monopoly on the appearance of the whole or a part of a
product resulting ... from the product or its ornamentation as follows: lines, contours,
colours, shape, texture, materials.

At www.patent.gov.uk/design/definition.htm.
7 Ekblom (2001) defines intervention as follows:
On the situational side as:

. • Target hardening, value reduction, removing passive provocation etc.

. • Perimeter access and security.
. • Environmental design and management including aiding surveillance, resolving conflicts and
setting rules.
. • Boosting preventers œ their presence, their alertness, competence, motivation and responsibility,
whether through formal control (such as patrolling), informal social control or teaching self-protection and avoidance.
 • Discouraging and deterring crime promoters and awakening their conscience œ for example
through naming and shaming, civil liability, tackling a criminal subculture, procedural controls or market reduction;
On the offender side as:
. • Excluding offenders from the crime situation œ for example keeping crowds of children out of
sweetshops, keeping young offenders under curfew or in prison, stopping corrupt company directors from running
businesses.
. • Deterrence œ raising the perceived risk and costs of getting caught; discouragement makes
offenders think the effort to commit the crime is too great and the reward too low; awakening conscience may move
them to anticipate, and avoid, the pain of guilt and shame.
. • Restricting resources for offending œ control of weapons, tools and information on targets and
transfer of criminal knowhow. Also control of criminal organisations‘ recruitment, growth and efficiency.
. • Reducing readiness to offend œ changing offenders‘ current life circumstances including drug and
alcohol problems, alleviating stressors such as poor housing, and reducing conflicts.

. • Supplying skills to avoid crime œ training offenders in social and work skills.
. • Reducing criminality œ intervening in early lives to reduce known risk factors and enhance known
protective factors through family, school and peer groups; supplying remedial treatment for those who have been
convicted.

These interventions make specific opportunities more risky, more effortful and less rewarding for
offenders ... Crime problems of a repetitive or prolonged nature (such as domestic violence or
persistent disorder) would also require analysis and intervention at levels above the basic ”single
event‘ perspective œ but in addition to, not instead of, that approach ...

Whether interventions are implemented in a strategic or tactical context, the immediate principles or
mechanisms by which they are intended to work can be described in terms of the 11 types of cause in Ekblom‘s
CCO opportunity framework. In practice, real-world methods of intervention are more complex. Remote
methods may work by a long chain of cause and effect before they can influence the immediate precursors. A
single method (such as putting a fence round a building site) can work through a whole range of mechanisms
(physically blocking access, discouraging offenders, helping preventers such as site guards, etc). Individual
methods may of course be combined in a package (see Figure 5) that addresses a range of causes of a particular
crime problem; or those causes common to a wide set of crime problems. This holistic approach has been
shown to confer synergy and efficiency. Implementation is about targeting and delivery: delivering the right
interventions to the right causes of crime in an efficient, effective, sustainable and acceptable way, addressing
the identified and prioritised needs of victims and the community.
8 What is ”innovation‘? The Design Council says, concerning innovation, that:
It is helpful to bear in mind three definitions of the word ”design‘: A design is the tangible
outcome, i.e. the end product of the design process, for example a camera or car etc. Design is a
creative activity. Design is the process by which information is transformed into a tangible
outcome. It seems that the third definition œ design as process œ is the most commonly used …

See www.designcouncil.org.uk/webdav/servlet/XRM?Page/@id=6004&Session/@id=D_4Soov
R38WxoInzBmAx08&Section/@id=1534 (accessed 10th July 2004).
9 Ie ”user-centred design‘, also known as: ”contextual inquiry‘, ”customer-focused design‘, ”empathic design‘,
”participatory design‘, ”usability‘, ”usability engineering‘, ”usability testing‘, ”user experience design‘ (UXD),
”user-focused design‘ and ”user-friendly design‘. The central premise of user-centred design is that the best-
designed products and services result from understanding the needs of the people who will use them. User-
centred designers engage actively with end-users to gather insights that drive design from the earliest stages of
product and service development; see
www.designcouncil.org.uk/webdav/servlet/XRM?Page/@id=6004&Session/@id=D_4Soov
R38WxoInzBmAx08&Section/@id=1534 (accessed 10th July 2004).
10 Visualisation techniques: ”visualising things makes them tangible and brings them into shareable form.
Visualisation brings ideas to life and helps understanding. Visualisation techniques help elicit, communicate
and analyse ideas and concepts. A wide range of techniques may be used to capture and describe design stages,
from basic design ideas through to ”customer journeys‘ and ”user experiences‘. From concept generation
through to design specification, techniques range from the humble napkin sketch through to photorealistic
computer images of products or buildings. They include techniques such as ”mood boards‘, and the charting of
”user experiences‘ or ”customer journeys‘ to describe less tangible concepts.‘ See
 www.designcouncil.org.uk/webdav/
servlet/XRM?Page/@id=6046&Session/@id=D_4SoovR38WxoInzBmAx08&Document/ @id=6897.
11 In discussion with Lorraine Gamman and Gloria Laycock, 2001œ2.
12 Adam Thorpe, in conversation with Lorraine Gamman, 2003œ4.

13 For the UK government‘s ”guidance‘ on best practice in designing out crime, see www.odpm.gov.uk/
stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_028449.pdf. Recent legislation (the Sustainable
and Secure Buildings Act 2004) allows for security to be made part of building regulations, and the
government is now working on the practical implications of this.
14. At www.securedbydesign.com.
15 At www.securedbydesign.com.
16 At www.securedbydesign.com.
17 Personnel trained as specialists in CPTED. A list of UK CPDAs and ALOs can be found at
www.securedbydesign.com.
18 Clarke‘s writings are seminal on this subject. See www.popcenter.org for a full list of his publications.

References

Armitage, R. (1999) An Evaluation of Secured by Design Housing Schemes Throughout the West Yorkshire Area.
Huddersfield: Applied Criminology Group, University of Huddersfield.
Atlas, R. (2002) The Sustainability of CPTED: Less Magic, More Science! Journal of the International Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design Association. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 3œ14.
Biggs, M. (ed.) (2000) Working Papers in Art and Design. Vol. 1. At www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/simsim/conex/ res2prac/.
Booch, G. (1993) Object-oriented Analysis and Design with Applications. 2nd edn. Menlo Park, CA: Pearson
Education.
Brown, J. (1999) An Evaluation of the Secured by Design Initiative in Gwent, South Wales. Unpublished dissertation,
University of Leicester.
Buchanan, R., Doordan, D., Justice, L. and Margolin, V. (eds) (1999) Doctoral Education in Design. Pittsburgh, PA:
Carnegie Mellon University Press.
Clarke, R. (ed.) (1992) Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. New York: Harrow and Heston.
Cooper, R. and Press, M. (1995) The Design Agenda: A Guide to Successful Design Management. Chichester: Wiley.
Durling, D. and Friedman, K. (eds) (2000) Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future. Stafford:
Staffordshire University Press.
Ekblom, P. (2000) The Conjunction of Criminal Opportunity: A Tool for Clear, ”Joined Up‘ Thinking about
Community Safety and Crime Reduction. In Ballentyne, S., Pease, K. and McClaren, V. (eds) Secure Foundations: Key
Issues in Crime Prevention, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
Ekblom, P. (2001) Less Crime, by Design. Illustrated website version of paper presented at the Royal Society of Arts,
London, October 2000. At www.e-doca.net/resources/lectures/ less%20crime%20by%20design.htm.
Ekblom, P. (2003) Delivering Joined-up Policy Solutions at Local Level: Developing the Good Practice Guidance for
Planning Out Crime. Paper presented at a conference on ”Designing-out Crime‘, London, April.
Essic, K. (1998) The Man Behind the Imac. PC World, 22nd September. At www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/
9809/22/imacman.idg/.
Felson, M. (1998) Crime and Everyday Life. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Frayling, C. (1993/4) Research into Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 1œ5.
Gamman, L. (2001) In the Bag, a Design Resource: Get Smart Quick about Bag Theft, Pickpocketing and
Street Crime. London: London Institute. Distributed by the Crime Reduction College, Easingwold.

Gamman, L. (2004) Briefing Notes, MA Industrial Design Project, 2003œ4, CSM.

Korvenmaa, P. (ed.) (1999) Useful and Critical: The Position of Research in Design. Helsinki: Helsinki
University of Art and Design.

McCamley, P. (1999) Crime, Design and Urban Planning. Report to the Department of Urban Affairs and

Planning, Sydney, NSW.

McCamley, P. (2002) Minimising Subjectivity: A New Risk Assessment Model for CPTED. Journal of the
International Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Association. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 25œ34.

Myerson, J. (2001) IDEO, Masters of Innovation. London: Lawrence King.

Pascoe, T. (1993) Domestic Burglaries: The Burglar‘s View. Information Paper No. 19/93. Watford: Building
Research Establishment.
Pascoe, T. (1999a) Evaluation of Secured by Design in Public Sector Housing. Watford: Building Research

Establishment.

Pascoe, T. (1999b) Predicting the Targets of Household Burglars: Developing Risk-based Models from a Case Study of
Recent Experience in Redditch, UK. Unpublished PhD thesis, Cranfield University. Pizzocaro, S., Arrunda, A. and De
Moreas, D. (eds) (2000) Design Plus Research. Proceedings of the
Politecnico di Milano Conference, Milan, May

Preece, J., Rogers, Y. and Sharp, H. (2002) Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.
London: Wiley.
Saville, G. (2003) The Future of CPTED. Paper presented at the ICA International Conference, Amsterdam,

September.
Saville, G. and Cleveland, G. (1998) 2nd generation CPTED: An Antidote to the Social Y2K Virus of Urban

Design. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual International CPTED Conference, Washington, DC, December.
At www.e-doca.net.
Scrivener, S. (2002a) The Art Object Does Not Embody a Form of Knowledge. Unpublished, CSM Library.
Scrivener, S. (2002b) Characterising Creative-production Doctoral Projects in Art and Design. International

Journal of Design Sciences and Technology. Vol. 10, No. 2, pp 25œ44.

Scrivener, S. (2004) The Doctor of Design: Research for Design. Unpublished paper.
Strandman, P. (ed.) (1998) No Guru, No Method: Discussion of Art and Design Research. Helsinki: Helsinki

University of Art and Design.

 Contact Details:

Dr. Lorraine Gamman

Project Director
Design Against Crime Research Initiative
The Innovation Centre
Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design
Southampton Row
London, WC1B 4AP
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 (0)207 514 7366
Fax: 44 (0)207 514 7050
Email: l.gamman@csm.arts.ac.uk
www.designagainstcrime.com

Dr. Tim Pascoe

Business Development Manager
Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International Ltd
6 Salisbury Road
Leicester, LE1 7QR
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 (0)116 252 5723
Mobile: 07971 207 308
Fax: 44 (0)116 252 2491
Email: t.pascoe@perpetuitygroup.com
www.perpetuitygroup.com

View publication stats