Defensible Space: Exploring the Link Between Built Environment and Crime

The Brantinghams?)

Newman (1972) defined the term “Defensible space” as “a model for residential environments which inhibits crime by creating the physical expression of a social fabric that defends itself (Pp. 3).” This concept emphasized the link between the built environment and crime situation in residential areas and asserted that it were the differences in physical design were the most critical reasons for the difference performance in crime. To achieve this, a range of mechanisms or strategies could be implemented, such as real or symbolic barriers, physical design which could provide improved surveillance, safe and methodic environment, and assured sense of security to the residents. The goal of these mechanisms was to make sure that

Territoriality emphasized the capacity of the physical environment to create the sense of the ownership. This can be achieved by using real or symbolic boundary barriers and markers (i.e. signs, fences, walls, trees, walkways…), limiting entry and access to the building, encouraging and regulating the legitimate activities in the public spaces. Natural surveillance underlined the capacity of physical design to provide necessary surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents. Limiting building height was one of the most vital strategies of Newman. Besides this, limiting the through access, deigning easily witnessed lobbies and limiting niches and alcoves, as well as positioning the entry and public space of the building close to the street could increase natural surveillance as well. This goal could also be achieved by reducing traffic lanes on streets while encouraging more pedestrians. Image put efforts on the capacity of design to influence the perception of a project’s uniqueness, isolation and stigma. The goal was to enhance residents’ sense of safety, let them perceived the environment is well-maintained and they were not isolated. This can be achieved by improving the lighting condition, enhancing and specializing the appearance of the buildings and streets, responding to disorder quickly and so on. It was generally accepted

Nodes were the activity sites, such as homes, work place, school, familiar shopping centers and restaurants and so on. Paths were the routes linking the activity nodes. Edges were the transitional zones from node or path into another area. Criminals would search for targets during their daily routines, and these targets would highly possible located in or near their normal activity nodes, routine travel paths. From this perspective, the crime event had to be triggered before it was committed. The triggers were the potential targets at the criminal’s activity nodes, or along their routine paths. However, the decision of actually committed a crime was highly individualized. The familiarity of physical environment, experience, perception of the risk and rewards, as well as other mental and psychological characteristics would structure the crime template for the criminal. Then the evaluation of the situation and opportunity to commit the crime would be conducted by the criminal with his/her individual template. Moreover, the edges purposely set by the city planners would also from the concentration of nodes, paths and crime