An Investigation of the Sustainability of Crime Prevention in the Built Environment: Impact and Implementation Factors
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Huddersfield Repository Stokes, Mark An Investigation of the Sustainability of Crime Prevention in the Built Environment: Impact and Implementation Factors Original Citation Stokes, Mark (2021) An Investigation of the Sustainability of Crime Prevention in the Built Environment: Impact and Implementation Factors. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/35535/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ An Investigation of the Sustainability of Crime Prevention in the Built Environment: Impact and Implementation Factors MARK STOKES A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy March 2021 1 Copyright Statement The following notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property rights must be included as written below: i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns any copyright in it (‘The Copyright’) and he has given the University of Huddersfield the right to use The Copyright for any administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in accordance with the regulations of the University Library. Details of these regulations may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of any patents, designs, trademarks and any and all other intellectual property rights except for The Copyright (the ‘Intellectual Property Rights’) and any reproductions of copyright works, for example graphs and tables (‘Reproductions’), which may be described in this thesis may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions. 2 Abstract This Thesis uses a case-study approach to examine the sustainability of crime prevention in the built environment and more specifically, Impact and Implementation factors over an extended time period – almost 25 years and one rarely encountered in the research literature. At its heart lie seven high-rise tower blocks constructed during the 1950s/early 1960s in Nechells, a district of inner-city Birmingham. These twelve-storey high blocks were refurbished in the early 1990s, albeit to different grades of CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). Four blocks constitute the case study site (CSS), three the comparison and all seven received separate Secured by Design (SBD) awards. This investigation began with a review of all the available literature. As a result, it was decided to adopt a case study approach methodology combining changes in various kinds of crime data with a broader analysis based on the 5Is (a detailed process model of crime prevention). Recorded crime data covering the years 1988- 2014 was requested from West Midlands Police and the vast bulk (some 1,459 offences) received. Knocking on the doors of the 532 flats at the CSS and comparison, resulted in questionnaires being completed for 286 tenant households. Twenty-two of these tenants were subsequently interviewed at length. And 12 professionals (who had been involved with the refurbishments in the early 1990s, management of the sites, or police crime prevention) similarly interviewed. Collectively, the quantitative and qualitative data was then analysed. 3 A number of key findings have been produced: how the potential conflict between security and fire safety issues requires careful/creative design to enable both, rather than compromise; knowledge of crime in high-rise tower blocks; uniqueness of a 25- year timeframe investigation; effectiveness of CPTED and SBD approaches; how the entrance doors to each flat and ground floor communal entrance doors should be of sufficient quality (durability and security effectiveness) to deliver sustainability of crime reduction over the very long term; the benefits of partnership working (including the tenants) and what works in practice to assist local authority and police managers as to where resources should be concentrated; that amongst the six crime categories analysed, burglary is most susceptible to the CPTED and SBD approaches, with no reported instances of aggravated burglary at either site and an 89.2 per cent reduction in burglary sustained at the CSS over 20 years; value of the DOCO role and their number; a once in 30-year opportunity to get things right; the value of 5Is as a research tool; and how the needs of the victims of crime and anti- social behaviour (ASB) should be at the forefront of all such decision-making. Ultimately, this investigation adds to the canon of existing research regarding the effectiveness of CPTED, SBD and as a means of analysis, the 5Is. 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Research studies of SBD compared Table 2: Timeline of construction, refurbishment and interventions Table 3: CPTED and SBD measures used at the CSS and comparison Table 4: Research methods timeline Table 5: Roles of Professionals interviewed Table 6: Police-recorded crime totals p.a. at CSS 1992-1994 and 1997-2014 Table 7: Police-recorded crime totals p.a. at comparison 1997-2014 Table 8: Police-recorded crime as totals by crime category p.a. at CSS 1992-1994 Table 9: Crime incidence in six categories at the CSS tower blocks 1992-1994 Table 10: Police-recorded burglaries per month at the CSS tower blocks during 1992 Table 11: Police-recorded crime totals across six categories at the CSS 1997-2014 Table 12: Police-recorded crime totals across six categories at the comparison 1997- 2014 Table 13: Police-recorded burglary totals p.a. at CSS and comparison 1992-1994 and 1997-2014 Table 14: Average incidence of burglary per dwelling p.a. 1997-2014 at the CSS, Comparison, across the City of Birmingham and in England and Wales Table 15: Police-recorded burglary totals p.a. at CSS and comparison 1992-1994 and 1997-2014 Table 16: Police-recorded robbery totals p.a. at CSS and comparison 1992-1994 and 1997-2014 Table 17: Police-recorded assaults totals p.a. at CSS and comparison 1992-1994 and 1997-2014 Table 18: Police-recorded vehicle crime totals p.a. at CSS and comparison 1992- 1994 and 1997-2014 Table 19: Police-recorded criminal damage totals p.a. at CSS and comparison 1992- 1994 and 1997-2014 Table 20: Police-recorded ‘other’ crime totals p.a. at CSS and comparison 1992- 1994 and 1997-2014 Table 21: Crime totals CSS and comparison for the 18 years 1997-2014 Table 22: Tenants’ household size at both the CSS and comparison – percentage at 5 each site Table 23: Tenants’ age-range at both the CSS and comparison – percentage at each site Table 24: Length of tenancy at both the CSS and comparison – percentage at each site Table 25: Tenants’ overall experience of crime at both the CSS and comparison – percentage at each site Table 26: Police-recorded burglary and tenant self-reported burglary at the CSS 1997-2014 Table 27: Police-recorded burglary and tenant self-reported burglary at the comparison 1997-2014 Table 28: Police-recorded robbery and tenant self-reported robbery at the CSS 1997-2014 Table 29: Police-recorded robbery and tenant self-reported robbery at the comparison 1997-2014 Table 30: Police-recorded assaults and tenant self-reported assaults at the CSS Table 31: Police-recorded assaults and tenant self-reported assaults at the comparison Table 32: Police-recorded vehicle crime and tenant self-reported vehicle crime at the CSS Table 33: Police-recorded vehicle crime and tenant self-reported vehicle crime at the comparison Table 34: Police-recorded criminal damage and tenant self-reported criminal damage at the CSS Table 35: Police-recorded criminal damage and tenant self-reported criminal damage at the comparison Table 36: Police-recorded ‘other’ crime and self-reported ‘other’ crime at the CSS Table 37: Police-recorded ‘other’ crime and self-reported ‘other’ crime at the comparison Table 38: Police-recorded crime compared to tenant self-reported crime at CSS and comparison 1997-2014 Table 39: CSS tenants’ perceptions of crime in Nechells compared to rest of Birmingham Table 40: Comparison tenants’ perceptions of crime in Nechells compared to rest of 6 Birmingham Table 41: CSS tenants’ perceptions of prevalence of specific crime types Table 42: Comparison tenants’ perceptions of prevalence of specific crime types Table 43: CSS tenants’ perceptions of changes in crime over time in Nechells Table 44: Comparison tenants’ perceptions of changes in crime over time in Nechells Table 45: CSS tenants’ perceptions of