LITERATURE REVIEW
2.5 LIMITATIONS OF CPTED
28 stakeholder partnership and capacity. Crime is constantly changing, the management and maintenance of the use of CPTED principles in crime prevention initiatives are vital in ensuring the sustainability of the model. It would need to undergo continuous monitoring and evaluation so has to adapt to changing crime trends, environments and societal needs.
29 steady supply of offenders. Challinger (1997) proposes a sixth form of displacement, 'functional' that refers to an offender completely changing the type of crime they commit.
Studies have found that while displacement should be considered when implementing crime prevention initiatives, the diffusion of benefits is more likely to occur than the displacement of crime (Weisburd et al. 2009; McLennan and Whitworth, 2008).
Challinger (1997) contends that chemist retailers who were experiencing high levels of theft, experienced less incidents after improving their physical security (target hardening measures) and decreased their vulnerability and incidences of crime.
However, this consequently led to slightly elevated levels of crime in other surrounding areas, to other retailers who took minimal measures to secure or improve their security.
On the other hand, Weisburd et al. (2009) argues that their study showed that offenders remained in the same area but changed their method of crime. However, while these studies are cautious not to outwardly suggest that crime is not displaced, they do suggest that policies and policing practices must address these incidents within the hotspots and the surrounding areas. In this way any displacement outside of target areas are considerably diffused (Weisburd et al. 2009; McLennan and Whitworth, 2008).
In light of Linden's (2007) argument, the analysis of the CPTED principles indicates that the model aims to address the symptoms of crime and its displacement by changing the spatial (environmental), temporal (time) and tactical (method) displacement of crime. The target (victimisation based on risk factors), functional and perpetrator displacement (offenders rational choice) tend to refer to social causes of crime and are thus, addressed through social crime prevention. These arguments also suggest that situational crime prevention approaches, like CPTED, do lead to some displacement of crime. However, this cannot be the primary basis for why the model should not be implemented. Crime displacement is as a result of the offender moving onto less secure environments, which make criminality possible. The solution to this would be to advocate the use of the model to modify the environment to reduce offendces in various settings.
30 2.5.2 Limited emphasis on social responses to crime prevention
Hayward (1997) is critical of models like CPTED because they lack reflexivity and fail to consider other extenuating causal factors that contribute to crime. This argument relates directly to the similarities between CPTED and the use of GIS in crime analysis and monitoring. GIS does not consider the socio-economic casual factors of crime, because it determines the location or type of criminal activity, rather than questioning or providing answers to reducing it. D'Angelo (2008) acknowledges that CPTED does not consider 'social' dynamics or address the cause of crime. However, he argues that this can be overcome, if the model is implemented in parallel to other socially based crime prevention models. In addition, although CPTED intends to reduce crime and victimisation, it can also serve as a form of social control by influencing a change in actions from deviant to non-deviant (Louwman, 1986).
2.5.3 Over-emphasise on target hardening
International strategies and guidelines encourage and regulate the use of CPTED, and are well prepared. However, in countries like SA and Asia, prevention through environmental design is still new. Although there has been research on CPTED, the implementation has been limited (Kruger, 2005a). Most projects rely heavily on the target hardening aspect (usually CCTV and burglar guard fencing), thus limiting its capacity by overlooking or neglecting its core principle of planning and design.
However, the over-reliance on target hardening is largely the result of the lack of knowledge and understanding of monitoring and evaluation of programmes based on environmental design (Kruger et al., 2006). Crowe and Zahm (1994) are critical of the use of principles of CPTED by professionals who possess little understanding about the implementation of the model. They reason that this can lead to inappropriate applications, causing further social disparities and crime. For example, the misinformed use of target hardening, like using high boundary walls and privatising space, acts as a form of exclusion and social polarisation.
31 2.5.4 Social and physical control through target hardening
CPTED is also argued, in essence, as a form of social control (of people) through physical design and environmental management. In addition, the over utilization of the target hardening principle creates the perception that CPTED is merely disguised as security, because of its 'privatisation' stance similar to enclaved gated communities.
This possibly reduces rather than enhances the quality of life, and displaces crime.
However, the model proposes that proper design and the effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and the incidence of crime, and an improvement in the quality of life (Cozens et al., 2005). There is a negative view of target hardening because of the control over spaces and people. However, a closer examination indicates that target hardening and management of space do not aim to close off areas, but to protect them. CPTED as a model does not necessarily advocate security (in the sense of closing off and privatising space as is commonly denoted to the idea of security). It aims to enhance safety (by reducing perceptions of fear, by making environments less attractive for criminality, and creating better living environments) through a variety of planning and design initiatives.
The analysis of the CPTED principles indicates that the model does have limitations.
However, the positive outcomes far outweigh the negative. Crime prevention theories are commonly established on the premise that crime occurs because of social factors. In contrast, the premise of CPTED is that the planning and design of an environment determine social interaction and behaviour that can induce crime and victimisation.
2.6 THE FUTURE OF CPTED: GREEN APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABLE