The DOI matches its Crossref record; 131 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 204 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography
Open accessAbstract
A critical review of the core findings of place-based crime prevention research, evaluating the available evidence on the contribution of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) as a physical design strategy to decrease opportunities for crime. Concludes that CPTED is effective in reducing both crime and the fear of crime.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
134 Sources not found · 37 Own interpretation · 13 No full text of the sources · 7 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Own method
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Four studies of increased formal guardianship at parking lots and garages have demonstrated reductions in car-related crime (Poyner, 1991;Laycock and Austin, 1992;Poyner, 1994;Barclay et al., 1996)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Poyner, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Laycock and Austin, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Barclay et al., 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research on territoriality has shown it to be most effective at the local level (Brown and Altman, 1981;Taylor, 1988;Ratcliffe, 2003)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brown and Altman, 1981
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Taylor, 1988 source
- Not matchedcites Ratcliffe, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A study by Brown and Bentley (1993) showed how some burglars used territoriality to evaluate risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brown and Bentley (1993) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the retail industry, in stores with two, as opposed to one member of staff on duty, fewer robberies were reported in a number of studies (Hunter and Jeffery, 1992).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hunter and Jeffery, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The intervisibility and enhanced surveillance Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography.Journal of Property Management.Volume 23,Issue 5, opportunities provided by terraced housing, for example, have been noted by a number of researchers (Newman, 1975;Pascoe, 1993;Steventon, 1996;Hillier and Shu, 2000a;Cozens et al, 2001b)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Newman, 1975
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pascoe, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Hillier and Shu, 2000a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“while a Dutch initiative using over 1,000 unemployed young people to monitor ticket use resulted in significant reductions in cases of recorded assaults and harassment (VanAndel, 1986).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites VanAndel, 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“CCTV and silent alarms did not reduce robberies in a study of 55 stores (Crow and Erickson, 1984)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Crow and Erickson, 1984
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Properties with low levels of lighting at night, high walls / fences, or thick trees or shrubbery can provide concealment opportunities for burglars particularly when close to points of access such as windows and doors (Weisel, 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Weisel, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“while one study found no such reduction (Hesseling, 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hesseling, 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“An increase in ticket collectors at a Canadian ferry terminal reduced fare evasion by an estimated 20% (Deschamps et al., 1992)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Deschamps et al., 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 70
- It may state two separate claims as one. 72
In the paper
“Brantingham and Brantingham (1991) have argued that there are four dimensions to any crime namely, the law, the offender, the target and the location.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brantingham and Brantingham (1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Where police evaluated a city regulation requiring two staff to be on duty, robberies declined immediately after the regulation was introduced (Clifton, 1987) and for several years afterward (Bellamy, 1996).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Clifton, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bellamy, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Loukaitou-Sideris (1999) has proposed that a second level population density exists; where the density is sufficiently high to mask a range of less serious offences such as pick pocketing and petty theft.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loukaitou-Sideris (1999) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, the existence of natural surveillance opportunities within the built environment does not necessarily mean that surveillance is routinely taking place, or that any direct action by citizens (e.g.challenging, reporting or direct intervention) is guaranteed (Barr and Pease, 1992).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barr and Pease, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Indeed, crime is not randomly distributed and 'hot spots' of crime have been acknowledged since the midnineteenth century (Guerry, 1833;Fletcher, 1849;Mayhew, 1862)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Guerry, 1833
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fletcher, 1849
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Mayhew, 1862
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Poyner (1991) notes that strategies to control access may reduce thefts of vehicles, but may do little to impact on theft from vehicles, raising the issue that what guards actually do may be as important as their physical presence.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Poyner (1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Access control and surveillance will also contribute towards promoting territoriality by promoting legitimate users' informal social control.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These strategies are not independent of one another, and they act in concert to use physical attributes to separate public, public-private and private space, to define ownership (e.g.fences, pavement treatments, signs, landscaping and artwork) and define acceptable patterns of usage, in addition to promoting opportunities for surveillance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Indeed, Schneider and Kitchen (2002, p158) comment that in practice, “it would be as difficult as untangling a spider's web to evaluate the effectiveness of specific place-based crime prevention measures”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schneider and Kitchen (2002, p158)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Even though a study by La Vigne (1991) found no such relationship”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites La Vigne (1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Security guards have long been used to reduce crime and have been shown to prevent bank robberies (Hannan, 1982) along with the use of protective screens (Grandjean, 1990).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hannan, 1982
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Grandjean, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Although still controversial, enhanced levels of territoriality have been linked to reduced levels of recorded crime and fear of crime (e.g.Taylor et al., 1985;Brown, 1987;Brown and Perkins, 1992;Perkins et al., 1992;Perkins and Taylor, 1996;Brown, 2001;Ratcliffe, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Taylor et al., 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Brown, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Ratcliffe, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Indeed, Merry (1981) observes how territoriality varies between cultures, neighbourhoods and individual groups.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Merry (1981) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Gill and Turbin (1999, p180) concur “policymakers and practitioners want quick decisions about whether a measure has been 'effective' or has reduced crime, while academics stress the need to do things properly, which takes time”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gill and Turbin (1999, p180)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, neither of these studies used control groups as a baseline comparison against which to measure existing trends, or to include other independent factors that may be acting to reduce crime in the wider community.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Deschamps et al., 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites VanAndel, 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Research being conducted at University College London, at the Space Syntax Laboratory claims “linear integrated spaces with some through movement and strong intervisibility of good numbers of entrances … are the safest spaces” (Hillier and Shu, 2000b, p4).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hillier and Shu, 2000b, p4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the evidence currently available is inconclusive and much criticised, which effectively prevents widespread intervention and investment in such an approach by central government.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Physical design has the capacity to promote informal or natural surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents and surveillance is part of capable guardianship (Painter and Tilley, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Painter and Tilley, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Poyner (1988) reviewed the effectiveness of the installation of CCTV on buses and found reductions in vandalism on the targeted buses and the diffusion of benefits to the entire fleet.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Poyner (1988)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“CPTED is both an increasingly fashionable approach and is being implemented on a global scale (Cisneros, 1995).”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“As a place-based crime prevention strategy, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) emerged as an independent theory and is now increasingly fashionable and is being implemented worldwide (Cisneros, 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cisneros, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The authors detail the difficulties associated with demonstrating the effectiveness of CPTED and conclude that although empirical proof has not been definitively demonstrated, there is a large and growing body of research, which supports the assertion that CPTED is a pragmatic and effective crime prevention tool.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CPTED emphasises crime prevention techniques that exploit the opportunities in the environment “both to naturally and routinely facilitate access control and surveillance, and to reinforce positive behaviour in the use of the environment” (Crowe, 2000, p37).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Crowe, 2000, p37
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Evaluating the effectiveness of CCTV is also problematic and despite the rapid growth in the deployment of CCTV, particularly in British cities Armitage (2002, p1) argues, “there is very little substantive research evidence …that CCTV works”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armitage (2002, p1)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Angel (1968) predicted that certain critical levels of street activity and population density were linked to crime.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Angel (1968)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Crucially, Herbert and Hyde (1985) note that if the spatial distribution of offences and offenders were random, then environmental criminology would be of little interest to either scholars or commentators on either criminal or social policy.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Herbert and Hyde (1985)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In car parks, however, there was evidence of a significant (41%) reduction in vehicle crime in experimental areas compared with control areas (although other strategies, such as lighting and signage, were also present in all the five studies of car parks).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Welsh and Farrington (2002)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Of 103 studies, only 15 were considered sufficiently rigorous for evaluation and the review of these studies found that the results were inconclusive, and that other indicators of crime should be used in addition to recorded crime data.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tien et al., 1979
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Overall, a 5% reduction in recorded crime was reported and half of the studies, (all in the UK) revealed a fall in recorded crime.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Welsh and Farrington (2002)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In Chicago (Popkin et al, 1995a(Popkin et al, , 1995b)), ground floor entrances to public housing complexes were enclosed in new lobbies with the installation of concierges and metal detectors.Most residents reported significant reductions in shootings, violence and drug dealing (no control group).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Popkin et al, 1995a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Popkin et al, 1995b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Farrington and Welsh (2002) argue that this review should have stimulated more studies but was mistakenly interpreted as demonstrating that lighting had no obvious effect on levels of crime and funding for research on this topic in the USA evaporated.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Farrington and Welsh (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Skinns (1998) evaluated CCTV in Doncaster (UK) and found vehicle crime reduced while other property crimes were not.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Skinns (1998)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A study by Painter and Farrington (1997), which used experimental and control areas, showed reductions in crime and an increase in pedestrian street use.They concluded “in the experimental area, there was a substantial and significant decrease in the incidence of all categories of crime after the improved street lighting” (Painter and Farrington, 1997, p221).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Painter and Farrington (1997, p221)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“From this overview, Eck (1997, p7-8) states; “these evaluations are suggestive of possible beneficial effects in reducing pedestrian movement through large public housing complexes”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eck (1997, p7-8)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“A Home Office funded study (Atkins et al., 1991) conducted in Wandsworth found no effect on crime, as did a review by Ramsay (1991) although it did suggest improved street lighting could reduce the fear of crime.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Atkins et al., 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Ramsay (1991)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They conclude that the effectiveness of CCTV “remains to be established in what locations and under what conditions” (Wilson and Sutton, 2003, p6)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wilson and Sutton, 2003, p6
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In terms of the city centre and public housing areas there was little evidence of crime reduction and in four public transport studies, two found reductions, one found no effect and one found an increase in recorded crime.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Welsh and Farrington (2002)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, natural surveillance (e.g.residents' self-surveillance opportunities as facilitated by windows) formal surveillance (e.g.police patrols) and mechanical surveillance strategies (e.g.street lighting and CCTV) have all proven effective in reducing both crime and the fear of crime.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“She also highlights the fact that the preventative potential of CCTV has a life cycle such that, unless routine management and publicity is maintained, any initial reductions in crime will evaporate (Webb and Laycock, 1992;Brown, 1995;Tilley, 1993;Armitage et al., 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Webb and Laycock, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Brown, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tilley, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Armitage (2002, p5) summarises this review (Welsh and Farrington, 2002) suggesting, “CCTV appears to have no effect on violent crime, a significant effect on vehicle crimes and it is most effective when used in car parks”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armitage (2002, p5)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Welsh and Farrington, 2002
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“At Clason Point in New York's Bronx district such routes through the public housing complex were reduced in number and the lighting and surface appearance of the buildings was improved.A significant reduction in crime (54%) was reported (Newman, 1996) although there was no control group.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Newman, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“CCTV was found to have a significant crime reduction effect on recorded vehicle crime (from 8 studies) but no effect on violent crime (from 5 studies).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Welsh and Farrington (2002)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Other studies in Cardiff (Herbert and Moore, 1991), Hull (Davidson and Goodey, 1991), Leeds (Burden and Murphy, 1991) and Strathclyde (Ditton et al, 1993) produced inconclusive findings using “before” and “after” comparisons but failed to provide a control area (Painter and Farrington, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Herbert and Moore, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Davidson and Goodey, 1991
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Ditton et al, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Armitage et al., (1999) discovered CCTV significantly decreased all recorded property crime (burglary, car crime, criminal damage, handling stolen goods and fraud) in Burnley (UK).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armitage et al., (1999)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“According to Eck (1997) research has suggested that areas with unregulated access have more crime than areas with street layouts with more restricted access (White, 1990; Beavon 8.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1990 source
- Not matchedcites Beavon et al., 1994
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Armitage (2002) observes how the effects of CCTV on crime can begin before the cameras become operational (Brown, 1995) by virtue of publicity campaigns.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armitage (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Brown, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, in consideration of the extensive range of different CCTV systems and the variable and unscientific monitoring and management strategies that are in operation, the problems associated with measuring and comparing studies on the effectiveness”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In terms of the management of private rental housing, Eck (1997, p7-10) argues, “we have strong evidence that improving management of rental properties can reduce drug related crime”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eck (1997, p7-10)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“After road closures (and an increase in policing prior to the road closures) in Finsbury Park, soliciting and kerb-crawling virtually disappeared (with little recorded displacement) and reported crime fell by 50% (Matthews, 1992).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Matthews, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In Streatham a similar project reported a decline in traffic flows along major thoroughfares, a reduction in arrests of kerb-crawlers (although there may be several explanations of this) and residents reported a decline in prostitution at street level (Matthews, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Matthews, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although Eck (1997) observes that no significance tests were conducted for this study, he concludes that street closure evaluations have been conducted with greater rigour and appear to be promising.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eck (1997)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the UK, (Budd, 1999, p60) reports intimated that 61% of recorded burglaries involved forced entry through doors and windows (37% were forced open, 24% were smashed).However, 22% involved no forced entry, where locks and windows were left open (Budd, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Budd, 1999, p60
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Sorensen (2003, p34) observes, “pedestrian traffic thus seems to increase risk (from the standpoint of target selection) and decrease risk (from the standpoint of natural surveillance) depending on whether that traffic is through traffic or local traffic”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sorensen (2003, p34)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Crowe (2000) notes how within reason, activity generation and support seeks to place inherently “unsafe” activities (such as those involving money transactions) in “safe” locations (those with high levels of activity and with surveillance opportunities).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Crowe (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crucially, in terms of theory, practice and policy the issue of 'permeability' (the levels of through traffic and pedestrian movement) is currently hotly contested with some CPTED applications seeking to minimise escape routes (e.g.SBD), while others (e.g.'New Urbanism') support optimising permeability to promote maximum activity levels.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“three recent SBD evaluations (Armitage, 1999;Pascoe, 1999 andBrown, 1999) have all reported positive results in terms of reduced levels of recorded crime and perceptions of fear of crime”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armitage, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pascoe, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Brown, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Furthermore, promoting street-level activity by encouraging the practice of residential provision above retail units is a relatively recent innovation (Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wekerle and Whitzman, 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“while new automatic gates have curtailed fare evasion on public transport and reportedly increased ticket sales of some 10% in comparison with control stations without gates (Clarke, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Clarke, 1993
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ross and Mirowsky (1999) claim that research has consistently found that the presence of neighbourhood incivilities results in increased levels of fear (Covington and Taylor, 1991;Lewis and Maxfield, 1980;Perkins et al., 1990;Perkins and Taylor, 1996;Rohe andBurby, 1988 andTaylor andCovington, 1993).”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, “safe” activities serve as magnets for ordinary citizens who may then act to Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography.Journal of Property Management.Volume 23,Issue 5, discourage the presence of criminals.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the review of the CPTED components of surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, activity support, image / management, and target hardening intimates that they have all individually contributed to reducing crime and the fear of crime in a broad range of studies.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Crucially, excessive use of target hardening tactics can create a 'fortress mentality' and imagery whereby residents withdraw behind physical barriers and the selfpolicing capacity of the built environment is damaged, effectively working against CPTED strategies which rely on surveillance, territoriality and image.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Target hardening increases the efforts that offenders must expend in the commission of a crime and is the most long-established and traditional approach to crime prevention.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Newman's study of the changes to a grid street layout of the Five Oaks neighbourhood in Ohio (1996) found that total recorded crime in the city rose 1% while in the target neighbourhood recorded crime declined by 26% and violent crime declined by 50%.Half of the residents stated that fear of crime had been reduced and Newman reported that housing values had increased.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Newman (1996)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“On public transport, a clean up programme was undertaken to remove graffiti from all train cars and stations (Sloan-Howitt and Kelling, 1990) on the New York subway system.Graffiti was significantly reduced and in spite of increased police attention to graffiti, arrests for the offence also declined.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sloan-Howitt and Kelling, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is much disagreement concerning whether or not target hardening should be considered as a component of CPTED.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although increased numbers of pedestrians may provide additional 'eyes on the street' and potentially discourage some offences, this may also actually encourage and provide other targets for crime (e.g.pick-pocketing).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Promoting a positive image and routinely maintaining the built environment ensures that the physical environment continues to function effectively and transmits positive signals to all users.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The significance of the physical condition and 'image' of the built environment and the effect this may have on crime and the fear of crime has long been acknowledged (Lynch, 1960) and an extensive body of research now exists.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lynch, 1960
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In Victoria, Australia, following a programme promoting the rapid repair and rehabilitation of vandalised equipment, Carr and Spring (1993) found that train availability increased 45% and reported crimes against the person declined 42%.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Carr and Spring (1993)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Indeed, for Taylor (1991, p970) “the environmental 'image' offenders have of an area is associated with the extent to which the area is victimised”.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Taylor (1991, p970)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Wilson and Kelling's 'Broken Windows' thesis (1982) stressed the vital importance of maintaining the environment as a physical indicator of levels of social cohesion and informal social control”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wilson and Kelling (1982)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It is contended that the systematic zoning of areas for particular uses reduces the number of potential 'eyes on the street' (Jacobs, 1961).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jacobs, 1961
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, CPTED has been found to reduce crime and the fear of crime in numerous evaluations and to increase property values and investment in the area.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, 'irrational' offenders (e.g.those intoxicated by alcohol or drugs) are potentially less likely to be deterred by 1 st Generation CPTED strategies, but similarly, they might be less likely to respond predictably to any crime prevention initiatives.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An finally, when CPTED is applied without sufficient community participation and becomes overly reliant on target hardening, a 'fortress mentality' can result, where citizens and neighbourhoods (e.g.gated communities) withdraw behind walls, fences, and fortified homes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Secondly, negative socio-economic and demographic dynamics can also reduce the efficacy of CPTED strategies, or enhance the efficacy of CPTED if those dynamics are positive.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, recent research from America, suggests that displacement can be utilised as a positive tool, rather than as a negative side-effect (Saville, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Saville, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Feins et al., (1997) extensively reviewed four residential areas noting that the cases”
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · hedged
“are 'suggestive' that location-based crime prevention tactics …do reduce crime, although they are not 'proof' that this is the result”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Feins et al., (1997)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Schneider and Kitchen, 2002, p158
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · hedged
In the paper
“Eck (2002, p241) claims”
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
“there are a large number of place-focused prevention tactics with evidence of effectiveness”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eck (2002, p241)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Eck (2002, p242) notes that knowledge of which CPTED strategies work”
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
“is severely limited because places themselves have only recently become a subject of study (Eck and Weisburd, 1995)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eck (2002, p242)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eck and Weisburd, 1995
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
In the paper
“Fourthly, the ecological threshold or 'tipping point' (Saville, 1996) of a neighbourhood is the notion that like any natural ecosystem, it has a limited capacity for certain activities and functions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Saville, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, it can also be argued that displacement occurs as a negative side-effect of all existing crime prevention initiatives and is not a criticism that is exclusive to CPTED.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Merry (1981) identified 'undefended space' where cultural and social factors influence the propensity for resident action and self-policing.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Merry (1981) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“it is most successful”
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
“when residents are made aware of and educated upon the design strategies that have been implemented and their role in maximising the potential of these strategies”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schneider (2002, p389)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
In the paper
“the costs of the security measures were far outweighed by income generated from increased rents, higher occupancy rates and shorter vacancy periods (Schneider and Kitchen, 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schneider and Kitchen, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Poyner (1993) reviewed 122 evaluations of crime prevention projects and found that for all crime, over half of the evaluations in the environmental design or improvement category (24 out of 45) demonstrated firm evidence of crime reduction.A further 12 evaluations indicated limited evidence of crime reduction.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Poyner (1993)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This concept of neighbourhood capacity and the tipping point is one of the four principles of 2 nd Generation CPTED, the other three being community culture, cohesion, and connectivity (Saville andCleveland, 2003a, 2003b).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Saville andCleveland, 2003a, 2003b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, multiple interventions inevitably obscure the detailed understanding of what each intervention contributed.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When compared to three other urban rail transit systems recorded crime was lower and was not correlated with the crime levels associated with the spaces immediately above the station.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites La Vigne, 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Harbordale in Florida, where interventions resulted in increasing property values (5.5%)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schneider and Kitchen (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the precise details of what worked and how it worked are clearly not revealed in such a multiple strategy intervention.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A review of 28 CPTED studies on robbery (Casteel and Peek-Asa, 2000) found higher reductions (from 30% to 84%) in multiple component CPTED studies (16) and all but one of the single component studies (12)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Casteel and Peek-Asa, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In Eck's 1997 review, only one location-based study (Eck and Wartell, 1996) was ranked 5 (that is employing the most robust research techniques using randomised controlled”
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
“few studies have been replicated at a strong level of scientific evidence”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eck (1997, p7-6)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Eck and Wartell, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social conditions may nurture fear, reduce the inclination to intervene and result in the withdrawal of the individual into the home, which becomes heavily fortified.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the additional average cost of incorporating enhanced security features at the construction stage has been estimated at £400”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armitage (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Loukaitou-Sideris' (1999) empirically based research analysed environmental features associated with high crime bus stops in Los Angeles and confirmed 'desolation and lack of surveillance', 'crowding', 'broken windows', and 'easy escapes' as significant factors.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Loukaitou-Sideris' (1999) source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a recent study has highlighted 'security against crime' as the most important factor to be considered when designing a home (Armitage and Everson, 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Armitage and Everson, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“a 'stabilisation' of the neighbourhood's quality of life, physical appearance and social cohesion among the business community”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schneider and Kitchen, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Atlas (1991, p65) observes how 'offensible space' may exist where drug dealers and criminals utilise CPTED principles to create 'safe' or 'offensible' space within and from which they may carry out their criminal activities.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Atlas (1991, p65)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“there is no doubt that residents perceive crime to be lower and the quality of life to be improved by virtue of the city's place-based crime prevention interventions in Harbordale”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schneider and Kitchen, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Environmental decline and increasing rates of vacancy in a given neighbourhood may breach the 'tipping point' and result in the out-migration of residents, social capital and economic resources and set in motion a vicious spiral of decline.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Hakim and Rengert (1981) claim that there are five types, where the implementation of crime prevention measures in one area can 'displace' existing crime in terms of location, time, tactics, targets and type of crime.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hakim and Rengert (1981)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Poyner (1993, p21) concludes that there is optimism in the field of crime prevention but”
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · boosted
“such a broad analysis does not tell us what makes an individual crime prevention project successful, but it makes it quite clear that many of the measures already known in the crime prevention field can be made to work”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Poyner (1993, p21)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · boosted
In the paper
“Draper (2000) observes that CPTED clients are often unwilling to fund follow-up research evaluating CPTED interventions and that even when this is an objective, client confidentiality can often result in the non-dissemination of findings.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Draper (2000)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In Sherman et al (1997;2002) the effectiveness of the majority of the placebased initiatives was categorised as 'unknown' and most failed to meet the rigorous methodological and evaluative standards, this does not necessarily mean that they did not work, merely that it cannot be empirically 'proven' that they worked.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sherman et al (1997;2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What is less certain is precisely how CPTED and its component parts work, Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography.Journal of Property Management.Volume 23,Issue 5, where it works best and how to systematically evaluate its effectiveness (or otherwise) beyond reasonable doubt.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Schneider and Kitchen (2002, p158) comment that”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“despite the fact that the crime data support the contention that place-based applications work, the physical, management and community organisational interventions in these cases are woven together in complex ways that defy individual analysis”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schneider and Kitchen (2002, p158)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
In the paper
“Crowe (2000, p220) argues”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
“CPTED is a self-evident concept that has been used successfully for many centuries.Research and assessment over the last 30 years have confirmed the utility of what many people think is just good, common sense”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Crowe (2000, p220)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · boosted
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“There is confidence that as a comprehensive CPTED programme, the UK's SBD”
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
“works”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“although critics and supporters alike are still unaware as to precisely why”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Topping and Pascoe, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Cozens et al., 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Research Supporting Comprehensive CPTED Strategies. · plain
In the paper
“Grabosky (2003) has argued that science is beginning to inform crime control, highlighting the Campbell Crime and Justice website'sfoot_1 extensive list of systematic studies (over 5,000).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Grabosky (2003)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the insights presented in this review clearly indicate CPTED can be effective in reducing recorded crime and the fear of crime.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, only a minority (24) are currently relevant to crime prevention and most are oriented towards developmental crime prevention, rather than place-based programmes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eck (2002) reported that there were no place-based evaluations that did not work, claiming the existing empirical uncertainty about what works, at which places, and against which crimes”
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
“should not distract us from the broader finding that opportunity blocking tactics at places can be productive”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eck (2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusions · plain
In the paper
“It is also suggested that many of these studies may not have met the rigorous evaluative standards recommended by Sherman et al., (1997;2002) and therefore, in scientific terms, it cannot be unambiguously asserted that CPTED does not work.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sherman et al., (1997;2002)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Individual CPTED components such as territoriality, surveillance, maintenance, access control, activity support and target-hardening are being widely deployed.
“Additionally, individual components such as territoriality, surveillance, maintenance, access control, activity support and target-hardening are being widely deployed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The crime reductions reported in the cited evaluations are attributable to the CPTED interventions rather than to other unmeasured factors.
“Clearly, CPTED has been found to reduce crime and the fear of crime in numerous evaluations and to increase property values and investment in the area.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The reviewed studies are sufficiently valid and comparable to support general conclusions about CPTED effectiveness.
“the research supporting the effectiveness of CPTED is clearly accumulating.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Recorded crime and fear of crime are adequate measures of CPTED effectiveness.
“CPTED can be effective in reducing recorded crime and the fear of crime.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Access control
“protective screens on buses have significantly reduced assaults (Poyner and Warne, 1988)”
§ References
“194. Poyner, B. and Warne, C. (1986) Violence to Staff: A Basis for Assessment and Prevention.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Surveillance -Mechanical (Lighting)
“initial results found that such improvements produced substantial reductions in recorded crime (Berla, 1965;Wheeler, 1967;Wright et al., 1974;Tyrpak, 1975;Hartley, 1974)”
§ References
“18. Berla, N. (1995) The Impact of Street Lighting on Crime and Traffic Accidents.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Surveillance -Formal / Organised
“Four studies of increased formal guardianship at parking lots and garages have demonstrated reductions in car-related crime (Poyner, 1991;Laycock and Austin, 1992;Poyner, 1994;Barclay et al., 1996)”
§ References
“193. Poyner, B. (1994) Lessons from Lisson Green: An Evaluation of Walkway Demolition on a British Housing Estate.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Introduction
“Research on territoriality has shown it to be most effective at the local level (Brown and Altman, 1981;Taylor, 1988;Ratcliffe, 2003)”
§ References
“27. Brown, B. and Altman, B. (1983) Territoriality, Defensible Space and Residential Burglary: An Environmental Analysis.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Access control
“Poyner (1992) evaluated the impact of widening aisles at an open-air market in Birmingham, England, finding significant reductions in recorded robberies over a two-year period.”
§ References
“191. Poyner, B. (1992). Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism.”
Citations
Cites
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
Jacobs, J. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119084679.ch4 · Cited by 8,053
Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas
Lyon, F. E., Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1943) · Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951) · doi:10.2307/1137187 · Cited by 3,403
Handbook of environmental psychology
Stokols, D., & Altman, I. (1987) · Wiley eBooks · Cited by 2,991
Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1943) · Harvard Law Review · doi:10.2307/1334446 · Cited by 2,547
Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies
Clarke, R. V. (1992) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,618
Fixing broken windows: restoring order and reducing crime in our communities
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-5394 · Cited by 1,296
Clarke, R. V. (1995) · Crime and Justice · doi:10.1086/449230 · Cited by 1,215
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J. E., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1998) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e520902006-001 · Cited by 1,118
Disruptions in Place Attachment
Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-8753-4_13 · Cited by 845
Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas
Rock, P., Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1970) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/588284 · Cited by 742
Research works printed but not linked: 72
- Adams, J. (1973), “Review of defensible space”, Man – Environment Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 267‐8.
- Atlas, R. (1991), “The other side of defensible space”, Security Management, March, pp. 63‐6.
- Atlas, R. and LeBlanc, W.G. (1994), “The impact on crime of street closures and barricades: a Florida case study”, Security Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 140‐5.
- Bainbridge, D.I. and Painter, K. (1993), The Impact of Public Lighting on Crime, Fear of Crime and Quality of Life: A Study in the Moseley and Showell Green Areas of Birmingham, Institute of Criminology, Aston Business School, Birmingham and University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
- Barclay, P., Buchley, J., Brantingham, P.J., Brantingham, P.L. and Whinn‐Yates, T. (1996), “Preventing auto theft in suburban Vancouver commuter lots: effects of a bike patrol”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Beavon, D., Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1994), “The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Brantingham, P.L. and Brangtingham, P.J. (1991), Environmental Criminology, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
- Brown, J. (1999), “An evaluation of the secured by design initiative in Gwent, South Wales”, MSc dissertation, Scarman Centre for the Study of Public Order. University of Leicester, Leicester.
- Brown, B. (2001), “New homes/old homes: physical environment and residential psychology predicting crime”, Proceedings of the International CPTED Conference, 24‐27 September, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 167‐177.
- Budd, T. (1999), Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99, Home Office, London.
- Chatterton, M.R. and Frenz, S.J. (1994), “Closed circuit television: its role in reducing burglaries and the fear of crime in sheltered accommodation for the elderly”, Security Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 133‐9.
- Clarke, R.V. (1993), “Fare evasion and automatic ticket collection in the London underground”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 1., Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Clarke, R.V. and McGrath, G. (1990), “Cash reduction and robbery prevention in Australian betting shops”, Security Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 160‐3.
- Clarke, R.V., Field, S. and McGrath, G. (1991), “Target hardening of banks in Australia and displacement of robberies”, Security Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 84‐90.
- DesChamps, S., Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1992), “The British Columbia transit fare evasion audit”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Harrow and Heston, New York, NY.
- Ditton, J., Nair, G. and Phillips, S. (1993), “Crime in the dark: a case study of the relationship between street lighting and crime”, in Jones, H. (Ed.), Crime and the Urban Environment, Avebury, Aldershot.
- Du Plessis, C. (1999), “The links between crime prevention and sustainable development”, Open House International, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 33‐40.
- Ekblom, P. (1988), “Preventing post office robberies in London: effects and side effects”, Journal of Security Administration, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 36‐43.
- Ekblom, P. (2002), “Stirchley burglary reduction project, Birmingham, UK”, paper presented at the European Crime Prevention Network Conference: Summaries and Project Descriptions, Aalborg, pp. 126‐32.
- Felson, M., Belanger, M.E., Bichler, G.M., Bruzinski, C.D., Campbell, G.S., Fried, C.L., Grofik, K.C., Mazur, I.S., O'Regan, A.B., Sweeney, P.J., Ullman, A.L., LaQuanda, M. and Williams, M. (1996), “Redesigning hell: preventing crime and disorder at the port authority bus terminal”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Gill, M. and Turbin, V. (1999), “Evaluating ‘realistic evaluation’: evidence from a study of CCTV”, in Painter, K. and Tilley, N. (Eds), Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Grandjean, C. (1990), “Bank robberies and physical security in Switzerland: a case study of the escalation and displacement phenomena”, Security Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 155‐9.
- Grant, S. (2001), “Liability and public authorities for environmental design in Australia”, Proceedings of the International CPTED Conference, September 24‐27, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 303‐10.
- Hillier, B. (1973), “In defence of space”, RIBA Journal, Vol. 11, November, pp. 539‐44.
- Hunter, R. and Jeffrey, C.R. (1992), “Preventing convenience store robbery through environmental design”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Harrow and Heston, Albany, NY.
- Kaplan, S. (1973), “Book review of defensible space”, Architectural Forum, Vol. 98, p. 8.
- Kennedy, D.B. (1993), “Architectural concerns regarding security and premises liability”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 105‐29.
- Kraut, D.T. (1999), “Hanging out the no vacancy sign: eliminating the blight of vacant buildings from urban areas”, New York University Law Review, Vol. 74 No. 7, pp. 1139‐77.
- La Vigne, N. (1991), “Crimes of convenience: an analysis of criminal decision‐making and convenience store crime in Austin, Texas”, Master's thesis. University of Texas, Austin, TX.
- La Vigne, N. (1997), “Safe transport: security by design on the Washington Metro”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Laycock, G. and Austin, C. (1992), “Crime prevention in parking facilities”, Security Journal, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 154‐60.
- Lynch, K. (1960), The Image of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Matthews, R. (1992), “Developing more effective strategies for curbing prostitution”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Harrow and Heston, New York, NY.
- Painter, K.A. (1991b), The West Park Estate Survey: An Evaluation of Public Lighting as a Crime Prevention Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Painter, K. and Tilley, N. (1999), Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997), Realistic Evaluation, Sage Publications, London.
- Pieser, R. and Chang, A. (1998), “Situational crime prevention in Cerritos and Paramount Industrial Parks”, in Felson, M. and Peiser, R. (Eds), Reducing Crime Through Real Estate Development and Management, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 91‐101.
- Popkin, S., Gwiasda, V., Rosenbaum, D., Anderson, A., Olson, L., Lurigio, A. and Taluc, N. (1995a), An Evaluation of the Chicago Housing Authority's Anti‐Drug initiative: A Model of Comprehensive Crime Prevention in Public Housing, Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA.
- Poyner, B. (1988), “Video cameras and bus vandalism”, Journal of Security Administration, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 44‐51.
- Poyner, B. (1991), “Situational crime prevention in two parking facilities”, Security Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 96‐101.
- Poyner, B. (1992), “Video cameras and bus vandalism”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, 1st ed., Harrow and Heston, New York, NY.
- Poyner, B. (1994), “Lessons from Lisson Green: an evaluation of walkway demolition on a British housing estate”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 3, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Poyner, B. and Webb, B. (1997), “Reducing theft from shopping bags in city centre markets”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, 2nd ed., Harrow and Heston, Guilderland, NY, pp. 83‐9.
- Ramsay, M. (1991), The Effect of Better Street Lighting On Crime and Fear: A Review, Crime Prevention Unit Paper Number 29, Crown Copyright, London.
- Sarkissian, W. and Perglut, D. (1994), The Community Participation Handbook, 2nd ed., Impact Press, Sydney.
- Sarkissian, W. and Walsh, K. (Eds.) (1994), The Community Participation in Practice: Casebook, Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Perth.
- Sarkissian, W., Cook, A. and Walsh, K. (Eds.) (1997), The Community Participation in Practice: A Practical Guide, Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Perth.
- Saville, G. (1996), “Assessing risk and crime potentials in neighbourhoods”, paper presented at the 1st Annual International CPTED Association Conference, Calgary, 30 October‐1 November.
- Saville, G. (1998), “New tools to eradicate crime places and crime/niches”, paper presented at the “Safer Communities; Strategic Directions in Urban Planning” Conference, Melbourne, 10‐11 September.
- Saville, G. and Cleveland, G. (1997), “Second‐generation CPTED in schools”, paper presented at the 1st Annual International CPTED Association Conference, Orlando, FL.
- Saville, G. and Cleveland, G. (2003a), “An introduction to 2nd Generation CPTED: Part 1”, CPTED Perspectives, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 4‐8.
- Saville, G. and Cleveland, G. (2003b), “An introduction to 2nd Generation CPTED: Part 2”, CPTED Perspectives, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7‐9.
- Schneider, R. (2001), “Best practices in crime prevention through environmental design: canadian case studies”, Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Conference, 24‐27 September, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 373‐390.
- Shaftoe, H. (1994), “Easton/Ashley, Bristol: lighting improvements”, in Osborn, S. (Ed.), Housing Safe Communities: An Evaluation of Recent Initiatives, Safe Neighbourhoods Unit, London, pp. 72‐7.
- Sloan‐Howitt, M. and Kelling, G.L. (1990), “Subway graffiti in New York City: gettin up vs. meanin it and cleaning it”, Security Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 131‐6.
- Sorensen, D. (2003), “The nature and prevention of residential burglary: a review of the international literature with an eye towards prevention in Denmark”, available at: www.jur.ku.dk/medarbejdere/davesorensen/Publikationer/Nature.pdf (accessed 19 July 2004).
- Taylor, R.B. (1991), “Towards an environmental psychology of disorder. delinquency, crime and fear of crime”, in Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Krieger Publishing, Melbourne, FL, pp. 951‐86.
- Taylor, R.B., Gottfredson, S.D. and Brower, S. (1980), “The defensibility of defensible space: a critical review and a synthetic framework for future research”, in Hirschi, T. and Gottfredson, M. (Eds), Understanding Crime, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 53‐71.
- Vanderschueren, F. (1998), “Towards safer cities”, UNCHS Habitat Debate, Vol. 4 No. 1.
- Weidner, R. (1997), “Target hardening at a New York city subway station: decreased fare evasion‐ at what price?”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1982), “The police and neighbourhood safety ‘Broken windows’”, The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 29‐38.
- Ditton, J. and Short, E. (1998), “When open street CCTV appears to reduce crime: does it just get displaced elsewhere?”, CCTV Today, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 13‐16.
- Felson, M., Berends, R., Richardson, B. and Veno, A. (1997), “A community policing initiative to discourage abuse of alcohol”, in Homel, R. (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 7, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- French, P. (1996), “Inside the offender's mind”, CCTV Today, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 16‐19.
- Green, L. (1993), “Treating deviant places: a case study examination of the beat health program in Oakland, California”, PhD dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.
- Hope, T. (1994), “Problem‐oriented policing and drug market locations: three case studies”, in Clarke, R.V. (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 2, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
- Hunter, J. (1978), “Defensible space in practise”, Architects Journal, Vol. 11, October, pp. 675‐8.
- Jeffery, C.R. (1999), “CPTED: past, present and future”, paper presented at the 4th Annual International CPTED Association Conference. Mississauga, Ontario, 20‐22 September.
- Norris, C., Moran, J. and Armstrong, G. (Eds.) (1998), Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control, Willow Tree Press, Ashgate, NY.
- Pease, K. (1991), “The Kirkholt project: preventing burglary on a British public housing estate”, Security Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 73‐7.
- Saville, G. and Cleveland, G. (1997), “2nd generation CPTED: an antidote to the social Y2K virus of urban design”, paper presented at the 2nd Annual International CPTED Conference, Orlando, FL, 3‐5 December, available at: www.cpted.net.
- Wilson, S. (1978), “Updating defensible space”, Architects Journal, Vol. 11, October, p. 674.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 684
Horticultural Science’s Role in Meeting the Need of Urban Populations
Lohr, V. I., & Relf, P. D. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8560-0_5 · Cited by 7
Can enhanced street lighting improve public safety at scale?
MacDonald, J. M., Chalfin, A. J., Moritz, M., Wade, B. A., Mendlein, A. K., Braga, A. A., & South, E. C. (2025) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.70006 · Cited by 11
Calaresu, M., & Triventi, M. (2018) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11077-018-9337-1 · Cited by 7
Mara, F., & Cutini, V. (2024) · Planning Theory & Practice · doi:10.1080/14649357.2024.2415552 · Cited by 8
CPTED and Workplace Violence in Jordanian Public Hospitals
(2015) · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n4p336 · Cited by 7
Development and Application of a Scale to Measure Station Design Quality for Personal Safety
Rahaman, M., Currie, G., & Muir, C. (2016) · doi:10.3141/2540-01 · Cited by 7
Environmental Criminology and Cybercrime: Shifting Focus from the Wine to the Bottles
Llinares, F. M., & Moneva, A. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90307-1_30-1 · Cited by 5
Crime prevention through environmental design in New South Wales
Clancey, G., & Fisher, D. (2015) · Australian Planner · doi:10.1080/07293682.2015.1118392 · Cited by 7
The relationship between children’s fear of crime and pedestrian volume in school zones
Kirk, B., Ha, M., & Lee, S. (2023) · Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering · doi:10.1080/13467581.2023.2172346 · Cited by 7
Learning from and through Virtual Worlds: a Pilot Study of Second Life
Amati, M., & McNeill, M. A. (2012) · Journal for Education in the Built Environment · doi:10.11120/jebe.2012.07010039 · Cited by 6
An investigation into the antecedents of frontline service employee guardianship behaviours
Potdar, B., Garry, T., Gnoth, J., et al. (2021) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-06-2020-0124 · Cited by 6
(2014) · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6074-8.ch016 · Cited by 6
Shedding light on safety perceptions : environmental information processing and the role of lighting
van Rijswijk, L. (2016) · TU/e Research Portal · Cited by 6
Choi, W., Na, J., & Lee, S.-K. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14156581 · Cited by 12
(2006) · doi:10.1108/pm.2006.11324aaa.001 · Cited by 6
The Missing Link in CPTED Theory
(2016) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44124-5_25 · Cited by 6
Crime clusters and safety in underground stations
Uittenbogaard, A. C. (2014) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 5
Gender differences in pedestrian safety perceptions: the physical and digital spheres
Rotem-Mindali, O. (2025) · Travel Behaviour and Society · doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2025.101103 · Cited by 6
Walter, R. J., Tillyer, M. S., Ramiller, A., & Acolin, A. (2023) · Journal of Planning Education and Research · doi:10.1177/0739456x231175593 · Cited by 6
Ceccato, V. A., Kang, Y., Abraham, J., Näsman, P., Duarte, F., Gao, S., Ljungqvist, L., Zhang, F., & Ratti, C. (2025) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azaf017 · Cited by 5
Azadi, S., Bai, N., & Nourian, P. (2024) · Frontiers in Built Environment · doi:10.3389/fbuil.2023.1300843 · Cited by 7
Wu, S., Wu, S., Wu, S., et al. (2025) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings15183411 · Cited by 5
Understanding Instant Social Control of Shared Devices in Public Spaces: A Field Trial
Chang, Y., Han, S., Lee, H., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3678592 · Cited by 5
Cost-Effectiveness of Security Measures
Pieters, W., Probst, C. W., Lukszo, Z., & Montoya, L. (2013) · Advances in business information systems and analytics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4983-5.ch009 · Cited by 5
Differences-in-Differences in Approaches
Derzon, J. H. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_50 · Cited by 5
Exploring the Impact of Green Areas on Crime Rates in Urban Environments
Sypion-Dutkowska, N. (2023) · EUROPEAN RESEARCH STUDIES JOURNAL · doi:10.35808/ersj/3296 · Cited by 4
Crime in High-Rise Buildings: Planning for Vertical Community Safety
(2013) · Cited by 4
Modelling Urban Crime through Workforce Size: A Test of the Activity Support Concept
Montoya, L. (2014) · Environment and Planning B Planning and Design · doi:10.1068/b120068p · Cited by 4
The Prevention of Bushfire Arson through Target Hardening
(2008) · Cited by 4
Zhong, S., Bian, J., Chen, X., Curran, L. S., & Lee, C. (2025) · Journal of Planning Literature · doi:10.1177/08854122251341355 · Cited by 5
The Efficacy of Strategies to Reduce Juvenile Offending.
Allard, T. J., Ogilvie, J., & Stewart, A. (2007) · Griffith Research Online · Cited by 4
Towards Rural Regeneration in a Post-Agricultural and Post-Ideological Era
Shach‐Pinsly, D., & Shadar, H. (2023) · Land · doi:10.3390/land12040896 · Cited by 4
Ekren, E., Hall, R. W., Pierdolla, E. L., Barnes, V., Jarzombek-Torralva, A., Morrish, D. G., & Martinez-Prather, K. E. (2025) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106781 · Cited by 7
Branic, N. (2012) · Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · Cited by 4
Chung, H., Lee, J., Lee, S., Lee, J., Gim, T. T., & Park, Y. (2024) · Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering · doi:10.1080/13467581.2024.2358231 · Cited by 4
Mirzakhani, A., Behzadfar, M., & Turró, M. (2024) · Journal of Urbanism International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability · doi:10.1080/17549175.2024.2381506 · Cited by 4
Mapping CPTED parameters with the LookCrim application
(2021) · doi:10.1057/s41300-021-00119-9 · Cited by 4
Milani, A. M., Golmohammadi, M., Hoveyzavi, A., & Rahdar, F. (2025) · Journal of Salutogenic Architecture · doi:10.38027/jsalutogenic_vol4no1_14 · Cited by 3
The Law of Crime Concentration in Midsized Cities: A Spatial Analysis
Ridner, H. (2019) · TopSCHOLAR (Western Kentucky University) · Cited by 3
Saraiva, M., Neves, A. V., Santos, H., et al. (2019) · RPER · doi:10.59072/rper.vi52.465 · Cited by 3
Sorg, E. T., Houser, K. A., Lewandowski, C., & Schell‐Busey, N. (2020) · The Police Journal · doi:10.1177/0032258x20928096 · Cited by 1
Are federal security efforts evidence-based?
Lum, C. M., Cave, B., & Nichols, J. (2017) · Security Journal · doi:10.1057/s41284-017-0092-3 · Cited by 3
Park, S. Y., Han, G., Rhee, J. H., & Lee, K. H. (2024) · Frontiers of Architectural Research · doi:10.1016/j.foar.2024.09.005 · Cited by 4
Zhao, R., Guo, W., Wei, F., Luo, Y., & Liu, C. (2023) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems11080388 · Cited by 4
Solymosi, R., Guedes, I., & Vozmediano, L. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-91735-7_26 · Cited by 3
Behzadfar, M., Abdi, F., & Mohammadi, M. (2013) · Cited by 3
(2020) · doi:10.57042/rmcp.v3i12.367 · Cited by 3
Park, M., Perez, N. M., Jennings, W. G., & Gover, A. R. (2015) · Security Journal · doi:10.1057/sj.2015.15 · Cited by 3
Shach‐Pinsly, D., & Shadar, H. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16187938 · Cited by 3
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design for Low-Income Residents (B40) in Sabah, Malaysia
Alias, Z., Mohan, N. M. M., Ghani, M. R. A., Saad, M. B., & Abdullah, M. (2023) · Nakhara Journal of Environmental Design and Planning · doi:10.54028/nj202322318 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Cozens, P. M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D.
- Affiliations
- Department of the Premier and Cabinet (AU)
- University of New Haven (US)
- University of Glamorgan (GB)
- Venue
- Property Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 328-356
- ISSN
- 0263-7472 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2097230946
- Cited by
- 684
- References
- 134
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 33
- FWCI
- 22.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Property Management (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Community Health and Development
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homelessness and Social Issues
- Keywords
- crime prevention through environmental design, place-based crime prevention, fear of crime, crime reduction, surveillance, territoriality, access control, activity support
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
