FINDINGS
Plate 4.6: Abandoned building between residential homes in Wentworth
5.5 USING CPTED IN WENTWORTH
5.5.1 Planning, design and crime (and fear of it)
148 [Safer] urban design will contribute to the implementation of a more integrative urbanism, which in turn will be a more relevant urban design to promote greater access to land for all urban residents
(Landman and Ntombela, 2006: 23).
However, it is difficult to create inclusive spaces when the post-apartheid urban landscape has become exclusionary, in the form of gated communities, which represent new forms of spatial patterns (Landman and Ntombela, 2006). Studies of gated and fortified communities or places that advocate the prevention of crime through design, fail to consider less affluent, marginalised communities. Not only do these developments displace crime, but they are also beyond the reach of economically disadvantaged people. Transforming the physical and built environment of Wentworth to emulate the positive aspects (territoriality, safe environments, management of space and so on) of gated communities will be challenging, especially in light of poor service delivery and the existing planning and design of the community.
Chapter two provided a detailed discussion on restructuring the urban landscape to create inclusive, crime free environments for communities like Wentworth. Prosperous cities and communities are inclusive and promote productivity, infrastructure development, quality of life, environmental sustainability, equity and social inclusion (UNHABITAT, 2012). One way of achieving these goals in Wentworth would be to use the principles of CPTED because the model addresses an assortment of problems and not just crime (Zahm, 2007).
149 features such as poor planning and design issues, social problems and so forth. Crime prevention in these hotspots reduce crime, because the features that cause vulnerability and victimisation can be removed or modified (Anselin et al., 2000).
Geospatially mapping crime, and planning and design problems in Wentworth, was important to understand the causes and responses to crime and vulnerability. The map showed systematic patterns of crime around areas with distinct planning and design problems. Anselin et al. (2000) state that the analysis of the spatial distribution of crime suggests that crime hotspots are concentrated around certain land uses or population characteristics. These include areas with social disorder and deterioration, rundown commercial buildings, areas with poverty and communities composed of more female headed households (and a multitude of social problems). These characteristics of crime hotspots are very similar to those found in the Wentworth community.
In Wentworth criminogenic environments around provincial housing and open spaces, were highlighted as areas with the highest levels of crime and planning and design issues. For example, Overall et al. (2008) indicates that some areas may seem unpopulated, like vacant areas or open space. However, crime does take place in open and deserted spaces. Thus, crime mapping is able to pinpoint such areas for effective response. However, the authors caution that sometimes areas larger than one square kilometre of land are mapped. In these instances, crime incidents are diffused and may result in effective crime prevention or service delivery being reduced in that area. To counter this problem, they suggest relying on crime statistics to provide precinct reports of incidents within that square kilometre.
The analysis of residents' responses of crime, coupled with the map of Wentworth (Figure 4.13 and 4.14) and accompanying photographic evidence spatially and visually illustrated how crime was more predominant in areas that exhibited planning and design problems in the community. While this may indicate the implementation of the model in Wentworth is applicable, it was also important to assess the community's understanding and support of the model. The participation of residents in crime prevention within communities is vital to the sustainability of any programme. In terms of CPTED, the principle of territoriality
150 specifically advocates community involvement. Thus, the response from residents regarding the actual use of the varying CPTED principles was central to understanding the feasibility of using the CPTED within the community.
As previously mentioned the poor planning and design in Wentworth increases the potential for criminality and reduces residents' ability to have territorial control or use over their spaces (Pain, 2000). The notion that crime and physical factors cause fear indicates that modifying the physical, influences changes in the social environment (Loukaitou- Sideris et al, 2000). For instance, Austin et al. (2002) argues that adolescents living in neighbourhoods characterised by poor physical conditions tend to exhibit greater behavioural problems. Therefore, the physical form of the built environment plays an integral role in reducing crime and also controlling behaviour (Newman 1996). Newburn (2009) argues that in line with CPTED, subtle changes in neighbourhoods can increase surveillance and reduce fear of crime. For instance, he suggests that low traffic, areas lacking visibility, with limited intervention in the case of emergencies, makes people more vulnerable. Exacerbating these fears is the lack of social cohesion and community support.
Fear is often based on the real experiences of crime and victimisation (Lupton and Tulloch, 1999). A study by Ditton and Chadee (2006) revealed that victims of crime had increased feelings of future victimisation, this resulted in people perceiving crime to be higher than it actually was in reality. Beyond the role of crime statistics, the analysis of victimisation provides insight into the prevalence of certain offenses. Understanding fear is just as important as understanding crime levels. Frank (2003) argues that perceptions of crime (and the way government responds to it), determines people's behaviour. For example, an examination of the levels of crime within the Merewent area indicates that while crime had decreased, residents' still perceived crime has problematic. This resulted in fear of crime being higher than its prevalence (UrbanEcon, 2006).
In addition, Frank's (2003) arguments are applicable to this study's findings of feelings of safety and social interaction, which revealed that a decreased sense of safety determined
151 people's behaviour (social interaction and relationships). Interestingly, feelings of safety are not always conditioned by actual criminal events.