Criminal Justice

iResearchNet




Criminal Justice > Criminology Theories > Environmental Criminology

Environmental Criminology




Environmental criminology is a family of theoretical perspectives that explains crime by examining the spatial, temporal, and situational contexts in which criminal events occur — focusing on the characteristics of places, the routine activities of victims and offenders, and the opportunity structures that facilitate or inhibit criminal behavior. Distinguished from traditional criminological theories that ask why certain individuals become criminals, environmental criminology within Criminology Theories asks where, when, and how crimes occur — directing analytical attention to the immediate circumstances of criminal events rather than the distal causes of criminal motivation. Developed through the foundational work of C. Ray Jeffery, Oscar Newman, Marcus Felson, Lawrence Cohen, Patricia and Paul Brantingham, Ronald Clarke, and David Weisburd, the field encompasses several distinct but interrelated frameworks — crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), routine activity theory, crime pattern theory, situational crime prevention, and the criminology of place — that together constitute one of the most practically influential traditions in contemporary criminology. This article traces the emergence of environmental criminology, examines its core theoretical frameworks, surveys the empirical evidence on crime concentration and place-based intervention, and assesses the field’s criticisms, contributions, and policy implications.

Outline

I. Introduction

II. Origins and Intellectual Context




  • a. Jeffery and the Origins of CPTED
  • b. Newman and Defensible Space
  • c. The Shift from Offender to Event

III. Routine Activity Theory

  • a. Cohen and Felson’s Original Formulation
  • b. The Crime Triangle
  • c. Guardianship and Place Management

IV. Crime Pattern Theory

  • a. Brantingham and Brantingham’s Framework
  • b. Nodes, Paths, and Edges
  • c. Crime Generators and Crime Attractors

V. Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention

  • a. The Rational Choice Perspective
  • b. Clarke’s Situational Crime Prevention
  • c. The Twenty-Five Techniques

VI. The Criminology of Place

  • a. The Law of Crime Concentration
  • b. Hot Spots Research
  • c. Micro-Places and Street Segments

VII. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

  • a. First-Generation CPTED
  • b. Second-Generation CPTED
  • c. Evidence for CPTED

VIII. Technology and Contemporary Extensions

  • a. Geographic Information Systems and Crime Mapping
  • b. Geographic Profiling
  • c. Predictive Policing and Its Controversies

IX. Criticisms and Limitations

  • a. The Displacement Debate
  • b. The Neglect of Motivation and Root Causes
  • c. Equity Concerns

X. Policy Implications

  • a. Hot Spots Policing
  • b. Problem-Oriented Policing
  • c. Place-Based Prevention and Urban Design

XI. Conclusion

XII. References

Introduction

Why does crime concentrate in specific places? Why do a small number of street segments, addresses, and facilities account for a vastly disproportionate share of all crime in a city, while most locations experience little or no crime at all? And how can the physical environment, urban design, and management of places be altered to reduce the opportunities for criminal behavior? These questions define the distinctive orientation of environmental criminology — an approach that shifts the analytical focus from the criminal to the criminal event, from the person to the place, and from the question of motivation to the question of opportunity.

Environmental criminology within Criminology Theories represents one of the most consequential developments in contemporary criminological thought. Its core insight — that the characteristics of places, not just the characteristics of people, are among the primary determinants of crime — has transformed policing (through hot spots policing and problem-oriented approaches), urban planning (through crime prevention through environmental design), security management (through situational crime prevention), and criminal justice policy (through place-based crime reduction strategies). The approach is empirically grounded in one of the most consistent findings in criminological research: crime is not randomly distributed across the urban landscape but is concentrated at a small number of places, at predictable times, and in situations where motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians converge.

This article examines the theoretical frameworks that constitute environmental criminology, the empirical evidence supporting them, and their application to crime prevention and criminal justice policy.

Origins and Intellectual Context

Jeffery and the Origins of CPTED

Environmental criminology traces its origins to the early 1970s, when two independent scholars proposed that the physical environment could be designed to prevent crime. C. Ray Jeffery’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (1971) introduced the concept of CPTED — the proposition that the built environment can be modified to reduce criminal opportunities by altering the physical features that facilitate crime. Jeffery drew on behavioral psychology and ecological theory to argue that crime is a function of the interaction between the organism and the environment — and that altering the environment is more effective than attempting to change the organism through punishment or treatment.

Jeffery’s original CPTED framework was broad and ambitious, encompassing not only the physical design of buildings and spaces but also the social, biological, and psychological dimensions of the crime-environment interaction. He argued that crime prevention should address the total environment — the physical, social, and even neurological conditions that produce criminal behavior — rather than focusing narrowly on architectural design. This breadth, while intellectually ambitious, made Jeffery’s framework difficult to operationalize, and his contribution was initially overshadowed by Oscar Newman’s more focused and practically applicable concept of defensible space.

Jeffery continued to develop the CPTED concept throughout his career, eventually integrating insights from biosocial criminology — including the effects of nutrition, lead exposure, and brain chemistry on criminal behavior — into an expanded environmental framework that was more interdisciplinary than any other approach in criminology. Although the term CPTED is now primarily associated with the architectural and design-oriented approach developed by Newman and his successors, Jeffery’s original vision encompassed a much broader understanding of the relationship between the environment and criminal behavior.

Newman and Defensible Space

Oscar Newman’s Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design (1972) provided the architectural framework that made CPTED practically applicable. Working as an architect-planner, Newman analyzed the relationship between the design of public housing projects and their crime rates, finding that projects designed with large, anonymous common areas, limited natural surveillance, and unclear boundaries between public and private space experienced significantly higher crime rates than projects designed with smaller, more intimate spaces, clear territorial markers, and ample opportunities for residents to observe and control access to their environment.

Newman identified four principles of defensible space: territoriality (the design of spaces that residents can identify as their own and are motivated to defend), natural surveillance (the design of buildings and spaces that allow residents to observe public areas from their homes), image (the design of buildings that project an appearance of care and investment rather than neglect and abandonment), and milieu (the location of buildings in relation to other land uses and activity patterns that affect the flow of pedestrians and the level of informal surveillance). These principles provided a practical toolkit for architects, urban planners, and housing authorities seeking to reduce crime through environmental modification.

Newman’s work generated considerable debate. Critics argued that the relationship between housing design and crime was confounded by the socioeconomic characteristics of residents — that the high-crime housing projects were not crime-prone because of their design but because they concentrated poor, disadvantaged populations in architecturally isolated settings. Newman acknowledged this criticism in subsequent work, incorporating social and organizational factors into a revised defensible space framework that recognized the interaction between physical design and community organization.

The Shift from Offender to Event

The emergence of environmental criminology represented a fundamental shift in criminological thinking — from the study of offenders to the study of criminal events. Traditional criminology asked why certain individuals became criminal: what biological, psychological, or sociological factors distinguished offenders from non-offenders. Environmental criminology asked a different question: given that motivated offenders exist, under what conditions do they commit crimes? This shift in focus — from motivation to opportunity, from person to place, from distal causes to proximate circumstances — opened analytical space for the study of the immediate situations in which crimes occur and for the development of practical strategies that reduce criminal opportunities without necessarily changing the underlying motivations or characteristics of potential offenders.

The event perspective was formalized by Brantingham and Brantingham (1981) in Environmental Criminology, which proposed that criminal events are the product of the intersection of four dimensions: law (the legal codes that define which behaviors constitute crimes), offender (the individual who commits the crime), target or victim (the person or object against which the crime is directed), and place (the location and time at which the intersection occurs). Understanding crime requires understanding how these four dimensions come together in specific settings at specific times — an analytical approach that is fundamentally spatial, temporal, and situational rather than dispositional.

This event-centered framework provided the conceptual foundation for the theories and applications that constitute contemporary environmental criminology: routine activity theory, crime pattern theory, rational choice theory, situational crime prevention, and the criminology of place. Each of these frameworks examines a different aspect of the criminal event — the convergence of offenders and targets, the spatial patterns of crime, the decision-making of offenders, the situational conditions that facilitate or inhibit crime, and the concentration of crime at specific locations — but all share the foundational premise that the characteristics of the immediate environment are at least as important as the characteristics of the offender in determining whether crime occurs.

Routine Activity Theory

Cohen and Felson’s Original Formulation

Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson’s (1979) routine activity theory — introduced in “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach” — proposed that crime occurs when three elements converge in time and space: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. The theory treats offender motivation as a given — it does not attempt to explain why individuals are motivated to commit crime — and focuses instead on the circumstances that determine whether criminal opportunities are available. Crime increases when suitable targets become more numerous or accessible, when capable guardians become less present or effective, or when the routine activities of offenders and targets bring them into contact more frequently.

Cohen and Felson illustrated their framework by examining the post-World War II increase in property crime in the United States. They argued that the dramatic increase in household burglary between the 1960s and 1970s was a consequence of changes in routine activities: women entering the labor force in large numbers left homes unoccupied during the day (removing capable guardians), the proliferation of lightweight, portable consumer electronics (televisions, stereos, cameras) increased the supply of suitable targets, and the suburbanization of the population dispersed residential properties across larger areas with less natural surveillance.

The theory’s elegance lay in its parsimony: it explained macro-level changes in crime rates without reference to changes in criminal motivation, personality characteristics, or social conditions. Crime increased not because more people became motivated to commit crime but because the routine activities of everyday life created more opportunities for crime to occur. This opportunity-based framework represented a fundamental departure from the motivation-based theories that had dominated criminology and opened the door to practical crime prevention strategies focused on reducing opportunities rather than changing offenders.

The Crime Triangle

Felson and others subsequently elaborated routine activity theory into the “crime triangle” — a visual representation of the three elements whose convergence is necessary for crime to occur. The inner triangle identifies the three elements of the criminal event: offender, target/victim, and place. The outer triangle identifies three types of controllers whose presence can prevent crime: handlers (individuals who exercise informal control over potential offenders, such as parents, teachers, and employers), guardians (individuals who protect potential targets, such as property owners, security personnel, and bystanders), and place managers (individuals who regulate the behavior occurring at specific locations, such as business owners, building managers, and transit operators).

The crime triangle provides an analytical tool for diagnosing why crime occurs at specific places and for identifying the most promising intervention points. If a particular location experiences high crime, the problem may lie in the absence of any one of the three controllers: offenders may lack effective handlers (unsupervised juveniles), targets may lack effective guardians (unattended property), or the place may lack effective management (an unmonitored parking lot). The appropriate intervention depends on which element of the triangle is deficient — a diagnosis that requires careful analysis of the specific conditions at the specific location rather than the application of a generic enforcement strategy.

Eck (2003) refined the triangle concept by emphasizing that each crime type involves a different configuration of offenders, targets, and places — and that effective prevention requires matching the intervention to the specific configuration that produces crime at each location. A bar that experiences frequent assaults requires different interventions than a parking garage that experiences frequent auto theft, even though both are “high-crime locations.” The crime triangle provides the analytical framework for making these distinctions and for designing place-specific prevention strategies.

Guardianship and Place Management

Research on guardianship — the third element of the routine activity model — has expanded significantly since Cohen and Felson’s original formulation. Hollis, Felson, and Welsh (2013) proposed a typology of guardianship that distinguishes among formal guardians (police, security officers), informal guardians (residents, pedestrians, bystanders), and mechanical guardians (locks, alarms, surveillance cameras). Each type of guardianship operates through a different mechanism: formal guardians deter crime through the threat of apprehension, informal guardians deter crime through natural surveillance and the willingness to intervene, and mechanical guardians deter crime by increasing the effort required to commit the offense or by increasing the risk of detection.

Place management — the supervision and control of specific locations by individuals with responsibility for what happens there — has been identified as one of the most important but least studied elements of the crime prevention equation. Eck and Madensen (2015) argued that place managers (landlords, bar owners, hotel operators, transit supervisors) exert more influence over the occurrence of crime at their locations than police or informal guardians, because they control the physical environment (lighting, access, layout), the social environment (rules, enforcement, customer screening), and the information environment (surveillance, monitoring, reporting) that determine whether criminal opportunities exist.

The recognition that place management is critical to crime prevention has led to the development of third-party policing strategies — interventions in which police work with property owners, business operators, and other place managers to address the conditions at specific locations that generate crime. These strategies represent a practical application of routine activity theory that extends the crime prevention role beyond the police to include the full range of actors who control the environments in which crime occurs.

Crime Pattern Theory

Brantingham and Brantingham’s Framework

Patricia and Paul Brantingham’s crime pattern theory (1993) provides the spatial framework for understanding how offenders encounter criminal opportunities in the course of their daily activities. The theory proposes that crime is not randomly distributed across urban space but forms predictable patterns that reflect the intersection of offender activity spaces with the distribution of criminal opportunities. Offenders, like all individuals, move through the city along routine paths — between home, work, school, shopping, and recreation — and their awareness of the urban environment is shaped by the places they visit and the routes they travel. Criminal opportunities that fall within the offender’s awareness space — the areas with which the offender is familiar through routine activities — are more likely to be perceived and exploited than opportunities in unfamiliar areas.

Crime pattern theory integrates rational choice and routine activity perspectives by examining how the structure of the urban environment channels offender movement and shapes the distribution of criminal events. The theory proposes that three features of the urban environment are particularly important in shaping crime patterns: nodes (the activity locations — homes, workplaces, schools, entertainment venues — where individuals spend concentrated time), paths (the routes that individuals travel between nodes), and edges (the boundaries between different land uses, neighborhoods, or activity areas where the overlap of different populations creates criminal opportunities).

The theory has been applied to explain a wide range of spatial crime patterns, including the concentration of crime at major transportation nodes (bus stops, transit stations), along major commercial corridors, at the boundaries between residential and commercial areas, and in the immediate vicinity of facilities that generate large volumes of pedestrian traffic (bars, schools, shopping centers). These patterns are predictable consequences of the urban structure — they emerge from the routine activities of the population and the spatial organization of the built environment rather than from the characteristics of the individuals who inhabit them.

Nodes, Paths, and Edges

The three spatial concepts — nodes, paths, and edges — provide the analytical vocabulary for understanding how the built environment shapes crime patterns. Nodes are locations where people congregate and where activities are concentrated — residential areas, commercial districts, schools, transit stations, entertainment venues. Crime tends to concentrate at and around major activity nodes because these are the locations where potential offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of guardianship are most likely to converge. The density and character of the activities at a node determine its crime-generating potential: a neighborhood bar that serves alcohol late at night, for example, is a more potent crime generator than a library that closes at 5 p.m.

Paths are the routes that individuals travel between nodes — streets, highways, transit lines, pedestrian corridors. Crime patterns are shaped by the structure of the transportation network because paths determine how offenders move through the city and which areas fall within their awareness spaces. Offenders are more likely to commit crimes along their routine paths and in the areas immediately accessible from those paths — a pattern that explains the concentration of crime along major streets, near highway intersections, and in the vicinity of transit stops.

Edges are the boundaries between different types of areas — the transition zones between residential and commercial land uses, between affluent and disadvantaged neighborhoods, between different ethnic or cultural communities. Crime concentrates at edges because they are places where different populations mix, where surveillance is reduced by the anonymity that comes with being outside one’s home territory, and where the norms governing behavior may be unclear or contested. The concept of edges connects crime pattern theory to the ecological tradition of the Chicago School, which identified transition zones as areas of heightened social disorganization and elevated crime rates.

Crime Generators and Crime Attractors

Brantingham and Brantingham (1995) introduced the distinction between crime generators and crime attractors to explain why certain places experience high levels of crime. Crime generators are locations that produce crime by attracting large numbers of people — including potential offenders — for non-criminal purposes. Shopping malls, sports stadiums, transit hubs, and entertainment districts are crime generators: they do not attract people who come specifically to commit crimes, but the concentration of people and targets creates criminal opportunities that are exploited by offenders who happen to be present.

Crime attractors are locations that are known to potential offenders as places where criminal opportunities are abundant and the risks of apprehension are low. Drug markets, prostitution strolls, and areas known for stolen goods trade are crime attractors: they draw motivated offenders to specific locations because of the criminal opportunities those locations are known to offer. The distinction is important for prevention: crime generators require interventions that manage the flow of people and reduce opportunities (improved lighting, surveillance, access control), while crime attractors require interventions that disrupt the criminal market and increase the risks of apprehension (targeted enforcement, environmental redesign, community mobilization).

The crime generator/attractor distinction also helps explain why crime is concentrated at specific places rather than distributed evenly across the urban landscape. The spatial distribution of crime reflects the spatial distribution of generators and attractors — locations whose characteristics create criminal opportunities or draw criminal activity — and the routine paths that connect offenders to these locations. Understanding this distribution is the first step in designing place-based prevention strategies that target the specific conditions generating crime at specific locations.

Table 1. Core Theories of Environmental Criminology

Theory Key Scholars Central Proposition Primary Application
CPTED Jeffery (1971); Newman (1972) Physical environment can be designed to reduce crime Urban planning, architectural design, housing policy
Routine activity theory Cohen & Felson (1979) Crime requires convergence of offender, target, absent guardian Opportunity reduction; guardianship enhancement
Crime pattern theory Brantingham & Brantingham (1993) Crime patterns reflect intersection of activity spaces and opportunity Crime mapping, geographic analysis, urban planning
Rational choice theory Cornish & Clarke (1986) Offenders make decisions based on perceived costs and benefits Situational crime prevention
Situational crime prevention Clarke (1980, 1997) Crime can be prevented by modifying the immediate environment 25 techniques organized around five strategies
Criminology of place Weisburd (2015); Sherman et al. (1989) Crime concentrates at micro-places following predictable patterns Hot spots policing, place-based prevention

Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention

The Rational Choice Perspective

Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke’s (1986) rational choice perspective provided the micro-level decision-making framework that connects the structural theories of environmental criminology to the behavior of individual offenders. The rational choice perspective proposes that offenders make decisions about whether, when, where, and how to commit crimes based on a bounded assessment of the perceived costs, benefits, and risks associated with criminal and non-criminal alternatives. Offenders are not perfectly rational calculators — their decisions are influenced by incomplete information, cognitive biases, emotional states, and situational pressures — but they are sufficiently responsive to changes in opportunity and risk to be influenced by environmental modifications that alter the cost-benefit calculation.

The rational choice perspective distinguishes between involvement decisions (the decision to begin, continue, or desist from criminal activity) and event decisions (the decision about how to commit a specific crime — target selection, method, timing). Environmental criminology focuses primarily on event decisions — the situational choices that determine whether a specific criminal opportunity is exploited — because these are the decisions that can be most directly influenced by environmental modifications. By increasing the effort required to commit a crime, increasing the risks of apprehension, reducing the rewards of criminal action, removing excuses for offending, and reducing provocations, situational crime prevention seeks to alter the event-level decision calculus in ways that make criminal choices less attractive.

The perspective does not require that offenders engage in elaborate cost-benefit analysis before every crime. Rather, it proposes that criminal decision-making — like all decision-making — is shaped by the situational cues, environmental features, and opportunity structures that the individual encounters. A well-lit parking garage with surveillance cameras, security patrols, and clearly marked exits presents a different opportunity structure than a dark, unmonitored garage with hidden corners and multiple escape routes. The rational choice perspective explains why crime is less likely in the first environment and more likely in the second — without reference to the motivations, personality characteristics, or social backgrounds of potential offenders.

Clarke’s Situational Crime Prevention

Ronald Clarke’s situational crime prevention (SCP) framework, developed from the late 1970s through the 2000s, is the most practically influential application of environmental criminology. SCP proposes that crime can be prevented by modifying the immediate circumstances in which it occurs — the physical environment, the social context, and the management practices that determine whether criminal opportunities exist. Clarke’s approach is explicitly opportunity-focused: it does not attempt to change offender motivation or address the “root causes” of crime (poverty, inequality, inadequate socialization) but instead seeks to reduce the opportunities for crime by making it harder, riskier, less rewarding, and less excusable.

Clarke’s framework is organized around five strategies for reducing criminal opportunities, each of which encompasses multiple specific techniques. The five strategies are: increase the effort required to commit the crime (target hardening, access control, deflecting offenders, controlling tools/weapons), increase the risks of apprehension (extending guardianship, assisting natural surveillance, strengthening formal surveillance, utilizing place managers), reduce the rewards of crime (concealing targets, removing targets, identifying property, disrupting markets, denying benefits), reduce provocations (reducing frustrations and stress, avoiding disputes, reducing emotional arousal, neutralizing peer pressure, discouraging imitation), and remove excuses for offending (setting rules, posting instructions, alerting conscience, assisting compliance, controlling drugs and alcohol).

SCP has been applied successfully to a wide range of crime types, from burglary and auto theft to fraud, terrorism, and organized crime. Evaluations of SCP interventions have generally found significant crime reductions, with limited displacement to other times, places, or crime types (Guerette & Bowers, 2009). The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing at Arizona State University has developed over 80 problem-specific guides that apply SCP principles to particular crime types — providing police, security professionals, and policymakers with evidence-based toolkits for addressing specific crime problems.

The Twenty-Five Techniques

Clarke and Eck (2005) organized the SCP framework into a matrix of 25 specific techniques, classified according to the five strategies described above. Examples include target hardening (steering column locks, anti-robbery screens), access control (electronic card entry, fenced parking lots), screen exits (electronic merchandise tags, border inspections), deflect offenders (street closures, separate bathrooms for women), and control facilitators (credit card photo ID, restricting spray paint sales to adults). Each technique represents a specific environmental modification that alters the opportunity structure for a particular type of crime.

The 25-techniques framework has become one of the most widely used analytical tools in applied crime prevention. Its strength lies in its specificity: each technique addresses a concrete aspect of the criminal opportunity structure and can be evaluated empirically for its effectiveness. The framework also provides a diagnostic tool for analyzing why crime occurs at specific locations: by systematically examining which of the five opportunity-reduction strategies is most deficient at a given location, analysts can identify the most promising intervention points and design targeted responses.

The techniques have been applied beyond traditional street crime to emerging crime types. Clarke (2009) applied SCP principles to terrorism prevention, demonstrating that the same opportunity-reduction logic that prevents burglary can be applied to reducing the opportunities for terrorist attacks — through target hardening of critical infrastructure, access control at transportation nodes, and the disruption of attack planning through surveillance and intelligence. The adaptability of the SCP framework to new crime types demonstrates the generality of the opportunity-based approach.

The Criminology of Place

The Law of Crime Concentration

David Weisburd (2015) formalized one of the most important empirical findings in criminology: the law of crime concentration at places. Weisburd proposed that for a defined measure of crime, the concentration of crime at micro-geographic units (addresses, street segments) will fall within a narrow bandwidth of percentages for the defined cumulative proportion of crime — regardless of the city, the time period, or the specific crime type being measured. Specifically, he found that approximately 25 percent of crime in a city is concentrated at roughly 0.5 percent of street segments, and approximately 50 percent of crime is concentrated at roughly 4–5 percent of street segments.

This extreme concentration of crime at a small number of places — a finding that has been replicated in cities across the United States and internationally — has profound implications for criminological theory and criminal justice policy. It implies that the causes of crime are more closely tied to the characteristics of specific places than to the characteristics of the individuals who inhabit them. If crime were primarily a function of individual characteristics (criminal propensity, low self-control, social learning), we would expect it to be distributed across the city in proportion to the distribution of criminally motivated individuals. The extreme concentration of crime at a tiny fraction of places suggests that place-level factors — opportunity structures, guardianship, place management, environmental design — are among the primary determinants of crime.

The law of crime concentration also has important implications for the efficient allocation of police and prevention resources. If the majority of crime is concentrated at a small number of places, then concentrating prevention resources at those places — through hot spots policing, environmental improvements, and targeted place management — should produce the greatest crime-reduction returns per dollar invested.

Hot Spots Research

Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger (1989) conducted the first major study of crime hot spots, analyzing all calls for police service in Minneapolis and finding that 3.3 percent of addresses accounted for over 50 percent of all calls. This finding — that crime is dramatically concentrated at a small number of “hot spots” — stimulated a research program that has become one of the most productive and policy-relevant in contemporary criminology.

Sherman and Weisburd (1995) conducted the first randomized experiment on hot spots policing in Minneapolis, finding that increased police patrol at crime hot spots produced significant reductions in crime without substantial displacement to nearby areas. Subsequent randomized experiments in Jersey City, Lowell, Sacramento, and other cities have consistently replicated this finding. Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau (2014) conducted a meta-analysis of hot spots policing experiments and found statistically significant crime reductions across studies, with modest displacement that was typically offset by a “diffusion of benefits” in which crime reductions extended beyond the targeted hot spots to surrounding areas.

The hot spots research represents one of the strongest bodies of experimental evidence in criminology. The consistent finding that concentrated police presence at high-crime locations reduces crime — and that the benefits of this concentration outweigh the costs of displacement — has led the National Research Council (2004) and other authoritative bodies to identify hot spots policing as one of the most evidence-based policing strategies available.

Micro-Places and Street Segments

Weisburd, Groff, and Yang (2012), in The Criminology of Place: Street Segments and Our Understanding of the Crime Problem, extended the hot spots research by demonstrating that crime patterns at street segments are remarkably stable over time — that high-crime segments tend to remain high-crime and low-crime segments tend to remain low-crime across decades of observation. Using 16 years of data from Seattle, they found that the trajectories of crime at individual street segments could be classified into distinct groups: chronic hot spots, declining trajectories, increasing trajectories, and stable low-crime segments.

The stability of crime patterns at micro-places challenges the assumption that crime is primarily driven by individual characteristics (which change as individuals move, age, and develop) and supports the proposition that place-level characteristics — the physical environment, the opportunity structure, the quality of place management — are among the primary determinants of crime. If crime at a specific street segment remains consistently high despite complete turnover in the population residing there, then the causes of crime at that location must lie in the features of the place itself rather than in the characteristics of its residents.

This conclusion connects the criminology of place to the ecological tradition of Shaw and McKay, who demonstrated that delinquency rates in Chicago neighborhoods persisted despite complete ethnic turnover. The criminology of place extends this insight to the micro-geographic level, demonstrating that crime concentration operates at much smaller spatial units than the neighborhoods studied by Shaw and McKay — at the level of individual street segments, addresses, and facilities.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

First-Generation CPTED

The first generation of CPTED — developed primarily through Newman’s (1972) defensible space principles and their elaboration by Timothy Crowe (2000) — focused on the physical design of buildings, spaces, and neighborhoods to reduce criminal opportunities. The four core principles of first-generation CPTED are natural surveillance (designing spaces so that the activities of potential offenders are visible to residents, workers, and passersby), natural access control (using physical design to channel movement and restrict unauthorized access), territorial reinforcement (using design features to communicate ownership and community investment), and maintenance (maintaining the physical environment to communicate that the space is cared for and monitored).

These principles have been widely adopted in urban planning, architectural design, and public housing policy. The redesign of public housing projects to incorporate defensible space principles — reducing building heights, creating semi-private courtyards, improving sight lines, and strengthening territorial markers — has been associated with reductions in crime and improvements in resident satisfaction. The incorporation of CPTED principles into the design of commercial buildings, parking structures, transit facilities, and public spaces has become standard practice in many jurisdictions.

The application of CPTED principles to existing environments — through lighting improvements, landscaping modifications, access control upgrades, and the removal of physical features that provide concealment — represents one of the most cost-effective crime prevention strategies available. Casteel and Peek-Asa (2000) conducted a systematic review of CPTED interventions in commercial settings and found significant reductions in robbery and other crimes at treated locations.

Second-Generation CPTED

The limitations of first-generation CPTED — particularly its focus on physical design to the exclusion of social and organizational factors — led to the development of second-generation CPTED, which integrates physical design principles with community development, social cohesion, and place management. Saville and Cleveland (2008) proposed that effective CPTED requires not only the physical modification of the built environment but also the strengthening of the social environment — the relationships, organizations, and shared norms that enable residents to exercise informal social control over their spaces.

Second-generation CPTED incorporates four additional principles: community culture (strengthening shared values and community identity), connectivity (building relationships among residents and between residents and institutions), threshold capacity (ensuring that a community has the organizational resources to maintain safety), and social cohesion (building the trust and willingness to cooperate that constitute collective efficacy). These principles connect CPTED to the social disorganization and collective efficacy frameworks, recognizing that physical design alone is insufficient to prevent crime if the social conditions necessary for informal social control are absent.

The evolution from first- to second-generation CPTED reflects a broader recognition within environmental criminology that the physical and social dimensions of the environment are interconnected — that architectural design affects social interaction, and that social conditions affect the effectiveness of physical design features. A surveillance camera may deter crime in a well-organized community where residents are willing to report suspicious activity, but it will have little effect in a community where residents distrust the police and are unwilling to become involved.

Evidence for CPTED

The evidence base for CPTED has grown substantially since Newman’s original work. Cozens, Saville, and Hillier (2005) conducted a systematic review of CPTED research and found generally supportive evidence for the effectiveness of CPTED interventions, particularly those involving natural surveillance, access control, and territorial reinforcement. Lighting improvements — one of the simplest and most widely implemented CPTED measures — have been associated with significant crime reductions in multiple evaluations, with Welsh and Farrington (2008) finding a 21 percent average reduction in crime at improved lighting locations across 13 evaluations.

The evidence is stronger for some CPTED principles than others. Natural surveillance and access control have received the most consistent empirical support. Territorial reinforcement and maintenance have received more mixed results, partly because they are more difficult to operationalize and measure. The effectiveness of CPTED interventions also depends on the quality of implementation and the characteristics of the setting: interventions that are well-designed, properly maintained, and integrated with other prevention strategies (including social interventions and place management) are more effective than stand-alone physical modifications.

The development of CPTED certification programs, design guidelines, and professional standards has institutionalized the approach within the urban planning and security professions. The International CPTED Association provides training, certification, and technical assistance to practitioners implementing CPTED principles in communities worldwide.

Technology and Contemporary Extensions

Geographic Information Systems and Crime Mapping

The development of geographic information systems (GIS) and computerized crime mapping has transformed the practice of environmental criminology. GIS technology allows analysts to visualize crime patterns spatially, identify hot spots, overlay crime data with environmental features (land use, transportation networks, demographic characteristics), and track changes in crime patterns over time. The widespread adoption of GIS in police departments — accelerated by the CompStat model pioneered by the NYPD in the 1990s — has made spatial crime analysis a standard feature of police operations and has provided the analytical infrastructure for place-based policing strategies.

Crime mapping has also advanced the theoretical development of environmental criminology by enabling researchers to test spatial hypotheses with unprecedented precision. Analyses of crime patterns at the street-segment level, the block level, and even the address level have confirmed the extreme concentration of crime at micro-places and have revealed spatial patterns — clustering, diffusion, displacement, journey-to-crime distributions — that illuminate the mechanisms through which the urban environment shapes criminal behavior.

The integration of GIS with other data sources — including building permits, code violations, liquor licenses, transit ridership, and social media activity — has expanded the analytical toolkit available to environmental criminologists and has enabled more sophisticated analyses of the relationships between environmental features and crime patterns. Predictive analytics platforms that use historical crime data, environmental variables, and machine learning algorithms to forecast where crime is likely to occur represent the most recent extension of this technological trajectory.

Geographic Profiling

Geographic profiling — developed by D. Kim Rossmo (2000) — applies crime pattern theory to the investigation of serial crimes by using the spatial distribution of crime sites to estimate the likely location of the offender’s home or base of operations. The technique is grounded in the principle that serial offenders commit crimes within their awareness spaces — areas with which they are familiar through routine activities — and that the geographic distribution of their crimes therefore contains information about where they live and work.

Geographic profiling algorithms analyze the distances and directions between crime sites and generate a probability surface — a map showing the relative likelihood that the offender resides at each location in the study area. The technique has been applied to serial murder, serial rape, serial arson, serial robbery, and other patterns of serial offending, and it has been adopted by police agencies in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and other countries.

The validity of geographic profiling depends on the assumption that offenders commit crimes in areas with which they are familiar — an assumption that is well-supported by the empirical literature on journey-to-crime distances, which consistently finds that the majority of offenders commit crimes relatively close to their homes or other anchor points. However, the technique’s accuracy varies across offenders and crime types, and it is most effective when used as one tool within a broader investigative strategy rather than as a stand-alone identification method.

Predictive Policing and Its Controversies

Predictive policing — the use of algorithms and machine learning to forecast where and when crime is likely to occur — represents the most technologically advanced and most controversial application of environmental criminology. Predictive policing platforms (such as PredPol/Geolitica and HunchLab) use historical crime data, environmental variables, and temporal patterns to generate risk maps that guide the deployment of police resources to the locations where crime is predicted to be most likely.

The evidence for the effectiveness of predictive policing is mixed. Some evaluations have found modest crime reductions in areas targeted by predictive models, while others have found no significant effects. The most rigorous evaluations — including randomized controlled trials — have produced results that are encouraging but not definitive, suggesting that predictive policing may produce small crime-reduction benefits when combined with effective patrol strategies but is not a transformative innovation.

The controversies surrounding predictive policing are substantial. Critics argue that predictive algorithms trained on historical crime data will reproduce and amplify the racial and socioeconomic biases embedded in that data — directing police resources to the same disadvantaged, predominantly minority communities that have been disproportionately policed throughout American history. If the algorithm predicts crime where police have historically made the most arrests (rather than where crime actually occurs), the result is a feedback loop in which biased policing generates biased data that generates more biased policing. These concerns have led several jurisdictions to discontinue predictive policing programs and have prompted calls for greater transparency, accountability, and community oversight in the use of algorithmic policing tools.

Table 2. Key Empirical Findings in Environmental Criminology

Finding Evidence Implication
~50% of crime at ~4–5% of street segments Weisburd (2015); replicated across cities Place characteristics are primary drivers; concentrate resources at hot spots
Hot spots policing reduces crime Sherman & Weisburd (1995); Braga et al. (2014) meta-analysis Evidence-based policing strategy; significant crime reductions without substantial displacement
Crime patterns at micro-places are stable over decades Weisburd et al. (2012) — 16 years in Seattle Place-level factors dominate; turnover of residents does not change crime levels
Improved lighting reduces crime by ~21% Welsh & Farrington (2008) — 13 evaluations Cost-effective CPTED intervention
Displacement is typically incomplete; diffusion of benefits common Guerette & Bowers (2009) — 102 evaluations SCP and hot spots interventions produce net crime reductions
Vacant lot remediation reduces gun violence Branas et al. (2018) — RCT in Philadelphia Environmental improvement prevents crime without policing

Criticisms and Limitations

The Displacement Debate

The most persistent criticism of environmental criminology is the displacement hypothesis — the argument that place-based crime prevention does not reduce crime but merely moves it to other times, places, targets, or offense types. If crime is caused by motivated offenders, critics argue, then reducing opportunities at one location will simply redirect criminal activity to locations where opportunities remain available. If displacement is complete — if all the crime prevented at one location reappears at another — then the net crime-reduction benefit is zero, and the intervention has merely redistributed the crime rather than reducing it.

The empirical evidence on displacement provides a clear answer: displacement occurs, but it is rarely complete, and in many cases, place-based interventions produce a “diffusion of benefits” in which crime reductions extend beyond the targeted area to surrounding locations. Guerette and Bowers (2009) conducted the most systematic assessment of displacement, reviewing 102 evaluations of situational crime prevention and hot spots policing interventions. They found evidence of some displacement in 26 percent of cases but evidence of diffusion of benefits in 27 percent — suggesting that the net effect of place-based interventions is a significant reduction in total crime.

The displacement critique has been weakened further by the recognition that motivated offenders are not perfectly rational, perfectly mobile, or perfectly informed. Offenders have limited awareness spaces, limited transportation resources, and limited knowledge of alternative criminal opportunities. They do not respond to the closure of one opportunity by instantly identifying and exploiting an equivalent opportunity elsewhere. The bounded rationality of offenders — combined with the evidence that displacement is typically partial and often accompanied by diffusion — supports the conclusion that place-based interventions produce genuine, net reductions in crime.

The Neglect of Motivation and Root Causes

A second criticism concerns environmental criminology’s deliberate neglect of offender motivation and the “root causes” of crime — poverty, inequality, inadequate socialization, and structural disadvantage. Critics from the sociological and critical traditions argue that by focusing on the immediate circumstances of criminal events, environmental criminology ignores the structural conditions that produce the motivated offenders whose behavior it seeks to prevent. Reducing opportunities may prevent specific crimes at specific locations, but it does not address the underlying conditions that generate criminal motivation — and it may therefore produce only temporary, localized effects rather than lasting, systemic reductions in crime.

Environmental criminologists have responded that the neglect of motivation is deliberate and productive — that the history of criminology demonstrates the difficulty of changing offender motivation through social programs, treatment, or punishment, and that opportunity-based prevention offers a more immediate, more cost-effective, and more consistently effective alternative. Clarke (2009) argued that the “root causes” critique is based on a false dichotomy: addressing opportunities and addressing root causes are not mutually exclusive strategies, and the evidence suggests that opportunity reduction is more consistently effective than motivation reduction for preventing specific crimes at specific places.

The most productive response to the root-causes critique is the integration of environmental and structural approaches. Place-based interventions that combine opportunity reduction with community development, social services, and institutional investment — such as the integrated community initiatives documented by Branas et al. (2018) and Sharkey, Torrats-Espinosa, and Takyar (2017) — address both the immediate opportunities for crime and the structural conditions that produce criminal motivation.

Equity Concerns

Environmental criminology has been criticized for its potential to produce inequitable outcomes. Place-based policing strategies that concentrate police resources at crime hot spots may produce disproportionate police contact with the residents of disadvantaged, predominantly minority communities — communities that already experience the highest levels of policing and the most negative police-community relations. The intensification of policing at hot spots may reduce crime but may also increase the frequency of stops, searches, arrests, and uses of force against community residents — producing civil liberties costs that are concentrated among the most vulnerable populations.

Predictive policing algorithms that are trained on historical crime data risk amplifying existing racial and socioeconomic biases, directing police to communities that have been over-policed historically rather than to the locations where crime prevention resources would produce the greatest benefit. The equity concern is compounded by the observation that CPTED and situational crime prevention interventions are more readily available in affluent communities (which have the resources to invest in environmental modifications) than in disadvantaged ones (which may lack the political influence, organizational capacity, and financial resources to implement environmental improvements).

These equity concerns do not invalidate the environmental criminology approach, but they highlight the importance of implementing place-based strategies in ways that are sensitive to their distributional consequences — ensuring that crime prevention benefits are shared equitably across communities and that the costs of intensified policing are not borne disproportionately by the most disadvantaged populations.

Policy Implications

Hot Spots Policing

Hot spots policing — the concentration of police patrol and prevention resources at the specific locations where crime is most concentrated — is the most direct policy application of environmental criminology. The evidence from randomized experiments and quasi-experimental evaluations consistently demonstrates that hot spots policing produces statistically significant reductions in crime, with limited displacement and frequent diffusion of benefits (Braga et al., 2014). The National Research Council (2004) and the National Institute of Justice have identified hot spots policing as one of the most evidence-based strategies in the policing repertoire.

The effectiveness of hot spots policing depends on how it is implemented. Strategies that combine visible police presence with problem-solving — identifying and addressing the specific environmental conditions that generate crime at each hot spot — produce larger and more sustained crime reductions than strategies that rely solely on patrol and enforcement. Weisburd, Hinkle, Braga, and Wooditch (2015) found that hot spots policing can be implemented without the adverse community effects (reduced trust, increased resentment) that critics have predicted — particularly when police engage with community residents and address quality-of-life concerns alongside crime reduction.

The integration of hot spots policing with environmental modifications — improved lighting, access control, vacant lot remediation, place management improvements — represents the most promising application of environmental criminology to police operations. By combining the deterrent effects of police presence with the opportunity-reducing effects of environmental improvement, integrated strategies can produce sustained crime reductions that persist after police resources are redeployed.

Problem-Oriented Policing

Herman Goldstein’s (1990) problem-oriented policing (POP) framework represents the most systematic application of environmental criminology principles to police operations. POP proposes that police should move beyond the incident-driven, call-response model and instead identify, analyze, and address the specific problems generating crime and disorder at particular locations. The SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) provides the analytical framework for POP: officers scan for recurring problems, analyze the underlying conditions producing those problems, develop tailored responses that address those conditions, and assess the effectiveness of their interventions.

POP draws directly on the theories of environmental criminology — routine activity theory, crime pattern theory, and situational crime prevention — to diagnose the specific conditions generating crime at each location and to design interventions that modify those conditions. The Center for Problem-Oriented Policing has developed over 80 problem-specific guides — covering crime types from auto theft to campus disorder to underage drinking — that apply environmental criminology principles to the diagnosis and prevention of specific crime problems.

Evaluations of POP interventions have found significant crime reductions across a wide range of crime types and settings. Weisburd, Telep, Hinkle, and Eck (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of POP evaluations and found a statistically significant overall effect on crime reduction — though the quality and rigor of individual evaluations varied considerably.

Place-Based Prevention and Urban Design

Environmental criminology supports the integration of crime prevention considerations into urban planning, architectural design, and community development. The incorporation of CPTED principles into building codes, zoning ordinances, and development review processes ensures that new construction and renovation projects are designed with crime prevention in mind — reducing the need for costly retroactive modifications and security measures.

Community-based place-making initiatives — including the greening of vacant lots, the creation of community gardens, the improvement of streetscaping, and the activation of public spaces through programming and events — represent place-based prevention strategies that address both the physical environment and the social conditions that produce crime. These initiatives connect environmental criminology to the broader community development tradition and demonstrate that crime prevention can be integrated into efforts to improve the livability, attractiveness, and economic vitality of disadvantaged neighborhoods.

The recognition that the design and management of the built environment significantly influence crime patterns has created opportunities for collaboration between criminologists, urban planners, architects, public health professionals, and community development practitioners. Environmental criminology provides the theoretical framework and empirical evidence base for these collaborations, while the planning and design professions provide the technical expertise and institutional infrastructure for translating crime prevention principles into the built environment.

Conclusion

Environmental criminology represents one of the most practically consequential intellectual developments in the history of the discipline. By shifting the analytical focus from the criminal to the criminal event — from the question of why certain individuals commit crimes to the question of where, when, and how crimes occur — the field has opened a new domain of theoretical inquiry and practical intervention that has transformed policing, urban planning, and crime prevention.

The empirical foundations of environmental criminology are among the strongest in the social sciences. The concentration of crime at a small number of micro-places, the effectiveness of hot spots policing, the success of situational crime prevention interventions, and the crime-reducing potential of CPTED and environmental improvements have been documented across multiple studies, cities, and countries — providing an evidence base that few other policing or prevention strategies can match.

The future of environmental criminology lies in the continued integration of its place-based insights with the social and structural perspectives that address the root causes of criminal motivation, in the responsible development of technological tools (GIS, predictive analytics, surveillance) that enhance the precision of place-based interventions while safeguarding civil liberties and equity, and in the collaboration between criminologists, planners, architects, and community practitioners that translates the field’s theoretical insights into the design and management of safer, more livable urban environments.

References

  1. Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673632
  2. Branas, C. C., South, E., Kondo, M. C., Hohl, B. C., Bourgois, P., Wiebe, D. J., & MacDonald, J. M. (2018). Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(12), 2946–2951. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718503115
  3. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Environmental criminology. Sage.
  4. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. Advances in Criminological Theory, 5, 259–294.
  5. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02242925
  6. Bruinsma, G. J. N., & Johnson, S. D. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of environmental criminology. Oxford University Press.
  7. Casteel, C., & Peek-Asa, C. (2000). Effectiveness of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in reducing robberies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18(4S), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00146-X
  8. Clarke, R. V. (1980). Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a047156
  9. Clarke, R. V. (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Harrow and Heston.
  10. Clarke, R. V. (2009). Situational crime prevention: Theoretical background and current practice. In M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte, & G. P. Hall (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 259–276). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_14
  11. Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice.
  12. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
  13. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag.
  14. Cozens, P., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356. https://doi.org/10.1108/02637470510631483
  15. Crowe, T. D. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.
  16. Eck, J. E. (2003). Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation. Crime Prevention Studies, 15, 79–113.
  17. Eck, J. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2015). Meaningfully and artfully reinterpreting crime for useful science: An essay on the value of building with simple theory. In M. A. Andresen & G. Farrell (Eds.), The criminal act (pp. 5–18). Palgrave Macmillan.
  18. Felson, M. (2002). Crime and everyday life (3rd ed.). Sage.
  19. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. McGraw-Hill.
  20. Guerette, R. T., & Bowers, K. J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations. Criminology, 47(4), 1331–1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00177.x
  21. Hollis, M. E., Felson, M., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 15(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2012.14
  22. Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Sage.
  23. National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10419
  24. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Macmillan.
  25. Rossmo, D. K. (2000). Geographic profiling. CRC Press.
  26. Saville, G., & Cleveland, G. (2008). Second-generation CPTED: The rise and fall and rise again of crime prevention through environmental design. In R. B. Atlas (Ed.), 21st century security and CPTED (pp. 79–90). CRC Press.
  27. Sharkey, P., Torrats-Espinosa, G., & Takyar, D. (2017). Community and the crime decline: The causal effect of local nonprofits on violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1214–1240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417736289
  28. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00862.x
  29. Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829500096221
  30. Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070
  31. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press.
  32. Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., Braga, A. A., & Wooditch, A. (2015). Understanding the mechanisms underlying broken windows policing: The need for evaluation evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815577837
  33. Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2010). Is problem-oriented policing effective in reducing crime and disorder? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(1), 139–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00617.x
  34. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Effects of improved street lighting on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2008.13
  35. Wortley, R., & Mazerolle, L. (Eds.). (2008). Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan.