A systematic review of the CPTED–quality of life relationship

Abstract

Purpose

CPTED’s premise to the improvement of quality of life (QOL) is crime prevention and safety, and yet there is little concern for the impact of CPTED implementation to QOL when the crime increases after the interventions.

Design/methodology/approach

This study systematically analyzed articles both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Findings

This study found that the CPTED–QOL relationship discussion was highly inadequate in research. Improvement of QOL has been elevated to an unquestionable and certain truth of CPTED and yet the evidence on this is highly inconclusive.

Originality/value

This study is a contribution to the CPTED–QOL discussion that has been lacking.

Citation

Songole, H.S. (2024), "A systematic review of the CPTED–quality of life relationship", Safer Communities, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 317-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-10-2023-0048

“Improvement in the QOL has been elevated to an unquestionable and certain truth of CPTED and yet the evidence of this is highly inconclusive” (Source: Author).

Introduction

The continuous growth and evolution of CPTED as an urban planning construct is hampered by critical weaknesses in its theoretical aspects (Johnson and Gibson, 2013), which hamper the evaluation of CPTED interventions. Some of the theoretical weaknesses associated with CPTED include measuring the effects of CPTED on society, inconsistencies in CPTED definitions where CPTED proponents and scholars seem unable to agree on a single universal definition and the import or use of terminology that is inherently subjective in nature (Cozens and Love, 2015).

These challenges compound the problem for urban planners when they are required to justify using quantitative data that CPTED is effective. This paper in particular focuses on the relationship between CPTED and quality of life (QOL) and demonstrates that there has been insufficient focus by proponents of CPTED on QOL as an outcome of CPTED. Preliminary evidence suggests that the mention of CPTED is largely confined to the definition and passing mentions in research articles, and yet QOL seems to be an end goal of CPTED. Although QOL forms what appears to be an integral part of CPTED, as evidenced by its presence in frequently cited CPTED definitions, seems to be often overlooked by research (Crowe, 2000; Ekblom, 2013).

In fact, CPTED is always associated with a positive correlation to QOL and yet the evidence to support this is inconclusive. This does not mean CPTED does not work; it just requires more innovative research to account for the variability of crime post-CPTED. If CPTED is positively correlated to QOL, the evidence for this is sought by looking for lower crime levels and increased feelings of safety. However, the complexity and subjective nature of QOL might require a deeper analysis of factors possibly influenced by CPTED beyond crime and safety concerns. This is particularly essential in instances where crime becomes worse postimplementation.

The few studies that have attempted to study the effectiveness of CPTED have often ended up with mixed results (Owusu, 2015; Morgan et al., 2014; Armitage, 2007; Reynald and Elffers, 2009; Dahee et al., 2019). To demonstrate this inconclusiveness, Cozens and Love’s (2015) recent study on assessing the effectiveness of CPTED compared two stations, one designed according to CPTED principles while the other had not. Interestingly, participant rail users associated the station without any CPTED as safer than the one designed with CPTED principles. In some instances, crime drops after the interventions while in other scenarios, crime rises post CPTED interventions (Anchalee, 2008). Focus has been on the positive results of CPTED. When the data does not suggest a crime reduction, CPTED is assumed to have been done wrongly or that not yet understood context dynamics have evolved rendering CPTED ineffective.

Improvement of QOL as an outcome of CPTED has been neglected. Sample articles reveal that very little attempts have been made in explaining the CPTED–QOL relationship, with the primary focus being on the environment (safety and security of QOL) (Cozens and Love, 2015). But these are also not explained further as will be demonstrated in the findings.

This study, therefore, undertook a systematic review of articles between 2022 and 2023 to determine the extent to which researchers explain how CPTED improves QOL and whether there is any evidence of a negative impact of CPTED on QOL.

CPTED

The concept of CPTED promotes the idea that the environment has an active role to play in the propagation of crime (Ekblom, 1997; Songole 2018, 2021). This springs from cumulative research spanning decades on space and crime. CPTED is mainly founded on the eyes upon the street concept by Jacobs (1961) and Newman’s defensible space principles (Reynald and Elffers, 2009; Jacobs, 1961; Jeffery, 1999). It is also influenced by the broken windows theory urban village model, urban fortress model, environmental criminology theories (Routine activity theory, crime pattern theory), etc. (Henry, 2012; Roncek and Maier, 1991; McCord and Ratcliffe, 2009; Wilcox et al., 2004; Van der Weele, 2017; Nocheck, 2013). CPTED is divided into the first and second generation.

CPTED definition

There are a number of CPTED definitions available for scholars to choose from. Whereas they are different, most terminate with the concept of QOL. Crowe (2000, p. 6) defines CPTED as follows:

The proper design and effective use of the built environment that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life.

To Ekblom (2013, p. 13) CPTED is as follows:

[…] reducing the possibility, probability and harm from criminal and related events, and enhancing the quality of life through community safety, by the process of planning and design of the environment […] on a range of scales and places, to produce designs fit for purpose and contextually appropriate, whilst achieving a balance between the efficacy of avoiding crime problems before construction, and the adaptability of tackling them through subsequent management and maintenance.

Cozens and Melenhorst (2014) referred CPTED:

[…] as a process for analyzing and assessing crime risks in order to guide the design, management and use of the built environment (and products) to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to promote public health, sustainability and quality of life.

Bentuk et al. (2012)’s implementation guide defines CPTED as the idea that:

The detailed and effective design of the physical environment can influence human behavior from committing a crime as well as reducing the fear of crime and the incidence of crime while increasing the quality of the environment and the quality of life.

The Ministry of Justice (2005) defines CPTED as a crime prevention philosophy based on proper design and effective use of the built environment leading to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime, as well as an improvement in QOL. CPTED’s specific premise to improvement in QOL is reduction in the incidence of crime, and its fear. Although other scholars (Bentuk et al., 2012) seem to define QOL as a separate component to both crime incidence and fear and yet a reduction in this two should lead to an automatic improvement in QOL (Ministry of Justice (2005).

CPTED categories

CPTED is primarily divided into the first generation and second-generation CPTED with the first-generation CPTED having the principles of territoriality, access control and management, image and space management, natural access control, legitimate activity support, target hardening and geographical juxtaposition (Cozens and Love, 2015; Letch et al., 2011; Radosevich, 2012).

Second-generation CPTED, also known as community CPTED (Mallet, 2004), originated from criticisms of first-generation CPTED as being physically deterministic and not considering social aspects that influence crime (Letch et al., 2011). Letch et al. (2011) noted that it is a supplement of first generation CPTED not its replacement. Mihinjac and Saville (2019) distinguished the two further by noting that while first generation CPTED is about physical design, second generation CPTED in contrast primarily focuses on societal aspects that may help prevent crime from growing. Community CPTED extends beyond physical design and looks at social aspects that may work with the physical aspects to influence crime (Briggs, 2005).

The key concepts in second-generation CPTED are community cohesion, community connectivity, community culture and threshold capacity, which become pronounced when a community has a strong sense of community (Letch et al., 2011; Letch et al., 2011; Songole, 2021). Second generation CPTED also appreciates the carrying capacity of a community ecosystem.

The concept of threshold capacity in CPTED revolves around the carrying capacity of community ecosystems and involves the tipping point, which refers to the point at which the system carrying capacity is exceeded, beyond which the area spirals down to crime and decay (Letch et al., 2011).

The use of CPTED is mostly synonymous with the West and Asia (Cozens and Love, 2015) and usually guided by the establishment of CPTED departments and organizations which in turn create CPTED handbooks and guidelines. However, CPTED is not very common in the poorer countries.

Quality of life

The World Health Organization (WHO) lists four domains under QOL, and each domain contains different facets. These domains are the physical health, psychological, social relationships and environment (Fiona et al., 2018).

Over the years, crime-free life has been noted as a crucial component of a life of high standards. Crime and its negative impact on economic investment and development in particular has been proven. A better economic environment facilitates the acquisition of products and services and avails opportunities that have a bearing on the QOL of individuals and society as a whole (UN, 2016; Caulkins and Kleiman, 2014; Yusoff, 2020; Police, 2018; Natarajan, 2016). The UN also acknowledges that safety and security are human rights and CPTED seeks to achieve this right.

Even though it is clear that QOL is essential in having a proper livelihood, it is still a highly subjective term. Ruzevicius (2017) defined QOL as an individual’s satisfaction with his or her life dimensions comparing with his or her ideal life. The valuation of QOL is dependent on an individual’s value system and the cultural environment where he lives. However, Ruzevicius (2017) noted that an analysis of QOL will encompass a much broader scope than the individual’s health. The World Health Organizations WHOQOL (2012) user manual defines QOL as an individual purpose-aligned cultural and value system by which a person lives, relative to their aims, hopes, living standards and interests. QOL is therefore a subjective aspect relating to the persons desired ideal life compared to their current one.

How is quality of life presented in CPTED literature? Preliminary evidence

Preliminary investigations across articles cited in this literature show an absence of critical discussions on QOL in CPTED. Even though QOL is a crucial aspect of human livelihood and also seems to be important in CPTED, research concerning QOL is highly lacking, with most of the concept’s mention appearing in CPTED definitions and in brief mentions in text (Cozens and Love, 2015; Ekblom, 1997; Johnson and Gibson, 2013; Radosevich, 2012; Nocheck, 2013). This is also evident in CPTED guidelines for public spaces, hence suggesting that relevant professionals do not also critically consider QOL’s place in CPTED (City of Abbotsford, 2013; National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) 2013; New Zealand Health Promotion Agency, 2015).

CPTED already has a number of conceptual challenges e.g. conflicting use of subjective terminology that has rendered the measurement of CPTED outcomes and efficacy to be a challenge, especially in attempts to statistically attribute crime reduction to CPTED interventions which have often showed unpromising and mixed results (Cozens and Love, 2015).

In this backdrop, the incorporation of QOL in CPTED discussions without truly understanding how CPTED improves QOL and how improved QOL itself directly attributed to CPTED is supposed to be measured creates more ambiguity and weaknesses for CPTED, which does not aid its development. The complexity of urban planning and public space interventions makes it truly challenging to isolate QOL improvements directly attributed to an intervention as opposed to other foreseeable and unforeseeable factors that also interact within that space but may have also affected the QOL of users.

CPTED interventions in public spaces often involve modifications to the built environment which may end up improving the aesthetic appeal and feelings of safety in such spaces and strengthen legitimate uses of a space by encouraging legitimate activities (Cozens and Love, 2015). This might be projected to invariably improve the QOL of users (Kavakli et al., 2004; City of Abbotsford, 2013). However, aesthetic appeal and feelings of safety are subjective therefore suggesting that not all users will experience this improved CPTED interventions in the same way. It is not clear what percentage of users will experience an improved QOL and what will determine who experiences this improvement. These are some of the few but difficult queries that affect the experience of a better QOL and are lacking in research.

The preliminary review suggests that QOL is not well discussed in CPTED research and seems to be primarily mentioned as an outcome of CPTED interventions but with little effort to elaborate how it improves QOL, to whom and what factors are associated with QOL improvement (Johnson and Gibson, 2013; Nocheck, 2013; Letch et al., 2011; Matijosaitiene and Dambriunas, 2015; Cozens and Love, 2015). This study undertook a review of the most current articles to gain a better picture of the CPTED–QOL relationship.

Research methodology

This study used a literature review approach. There are three types of literature review approaches; systematic, semisystematic and integrative approaches of literature review. This study opted for the semisystematic review because it allowed the research findings to be synthesized in a systematic, transparent and reproducible manner. It is defined as a research method and process for identifying and critically appraising relevant research as well as collecting and analyzing data from said research while also identifying themes inherent in the literature (Libarati et al., 2019). The systematic approach allows the researcher to identify all empirical evidence that fits the inclusion criteria. The semisystematic review reduces the prevalence of bias from the findings and conclusions drawn because it combines quantitative methods and interpretation of text for meaning-making. The sampled articles were interactively reviewed with a focus on textual interpretation and information, while the second set of data was quantitatively collected using appropriate search words and analyzed using SPSS. 18 Articles were subjected to a quantitative review of sample words, while 40 articles were subjected to a textual review. A literature review was deemed relevant for this study because it is focused on an evaluation of previous works and their opinions on the subject matter.

Research question

RQ1.

To what extent do proponents of CPTED explain how it improves QOL?

Research design

Before the specific type of literature review was selected, the author scanned the literature to gauge the availability of research on the topic. This was done randomly. The number of articles and evidence sampled then dictated the method used. From initial screening, the open-source articles available to the author and published between the years 2021 and 2023 were few. The researcher, therefore, moved backwards to meet a minimum threshold of 50 articles under review (Short et al., 2016). However, the total number of reviewed articles was extended to 58 just to ensure a robust enough sample beyond the minimum was used. Quantitative data collected was keyed into SPSS and analyzed through cross-tabulations and frequency tables. Forty of these articles were analyzed through interpretation and theme identification (Martin and Helbi, 2023).

Sample selection

The processes followed in the sample selection were the initial screening of articles to help generate appropriate search terms, identification of articles to be reviewed and final disclosure of the review sample, which has been attached in the appendix section (Martin and Helbi, 2023).

Short et al. (2016) suggested that a minimum of 50 articles should be sampled in a literature review study. This minimum threshold was found to be appropriate in light of the approach taken by this study. A total of 58 articles were therefore reviewed.

Inclusion criteria

For the 18 articles identified, attention was especially paid to articles written between 2021 and 2023. The thematic review of 40 articles was random and included articles across the last 20 years. With a few published before the year 2000.

The search was done on Google and journals. The articles reviewed were the ones available to the author. Details of the articles can be found in the appendix.

Search terms and questions

The following subquestions were used in the review. QOL, security and safety were the main search terms:

• 1. How frequently is QOL mentioned?

• • Zero times;

• • 1–10 times;

• • over 10 times; and

• • over 20 times

• 2. How often is QOL (environment) mentioned?

• • physical safety; and

• • security.

• 3. What level of explanation on QOL do authors provide in their articles?

• • no explanation (mentions of CPTED only);

• • moderate explanation (passing attempts); and

• • comprehensive explanations (deep explanations).

• 4. Is there any sign of a negative effect of CPTED to QOL?

Findings

The study analyzed the articles through a word count to determine how many times QOL was mentioned in the sample of 18 articles under review. Figure 1 shows that 16 articles mentioned QOL between zero and ten times, with 8 having zero mentions of QOL. Only two articles mentioned QOL more than ten times.

The two components that are perceived to link CPTED to QOL (physical safety and security were also reviewed. The findings revealed that safety and security were both associated with QOL. However, these two aspects of QOL were not mentioned.

On explaining QOL, 14 of the articles that mentioned QOL did not attempt any explanation. Only four attempted moderate to very little form of explanation, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 2 showed that both the design process and fear of crime were also closely associated with QOL. Seven articles, however, did not mention the design process and fear of crime, as illustrated in the table below.

Thematic findings

The 40 CPTED-related research articles indicate that QOL appears both in the definition of CPTED as a crime prevention approach and within discussion texts of CPTED (Kushmuk and Whittermore, 1981; Crowe, 2000; Cozens and Love, 2015; Marzbali et al., 2011). However, rare attempts have been made to justify its presence at the heart of CPTED and how the QOL of affected members of society is specifically impacted by CPTED itself. The lack of a deeper discussion on QOL is demonstrated in the sample of CPTED research and guidebooks highlighted below as the text shows how QOL has been used and potentially interpreted.

The findings suggest that the explanations concerning the CPTED–QOL relationships are lacking and yet it is an important aspect of CPTED. QOL has not been given adequate attention and yet it is a crucial aspect of CPTED. For instance, Crowe (2000), in explaining CPTED, noted that the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the QOL. Improvement in the QOL has been mentioned as a core component of this explanation.

Cozens and Love (2015) also cited the definition of CPTED by Crowe (2000) before going ahead and mentioning QOL five more times throughout the article. Cozens and Love (2015) noted the study by Kushmuk and Whittermore (1981) that reviewed studies of CPTED intervention in Portland Oregon and found among others a stabilization of the QOL among the business community. However, it is not clear how the QOL was measured. The author appears to give a slight concession noting the lack of measurement of QOL indices.

Cozens (2011) only mentioned QOL once throughout the article when alluding to Crowe’s (2000) definition of CPTED, hence suggesting that QOL is an assumed element of CPTED. Marzbali et al. (2011), on the other hand, mentioned QOL 14 times across the article and notes that the article evaluates physical characteristics of the environment to improve human conditions and the QOL. However, these mentions do not elaborate more on QOL.

To Marzbali et al. (2011), crime and fear of crime are serious issues that contribute to a sharp decline in the QOL implying that CPTED automatically improves QOL but does not mention how this perceived improved QOL can be measured or whether it should. Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) noted that crime is a mirror of the QOL of a society and an essential element of public well-being. However, the study does not mention how an improvement in the QOL after CPTED interventions can be measured.

Radosevich’s (2012) study on CPTED and crime rates in apartment settings only mentions QOL when quoting Crowe’s (2000) definition of CPTED. To Radosevich (2012), CPTED’s influence on the QOL of dwellers in apartment settings seems to be implied and therefore no further mention of it in ensuing discussions in that paper. Letch et al. (2011, p. 39) mentioned CPTED when citing Crowe and Zahm’s (1994) definition of CPTED as “the use of a built environment where that environment acts to prevent or reduce the incidence of crime, the fear of crime, and to improve the QOL.” Other than this one instance, the author does not mention QOL any further. The study explores 1st and 2nd generation CPTED for school leavers but finds no need of mentioning QOL apart from the definition.

Johnson and Gibson (2013), in a study to investigate the conflicting frameworks and terminology in CPTED, mentioned QOL when quoting Crowe (2000) and Ekblom (2013) “Redesigning the Language and Concepts of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design” definitions of CPTED and further acknowledges that Crowe (2000) definition is one that is most cited. Gibson and Johnson (2013) also mentioned CPTED when alluding to Woods’ (1961) housing design changes that were supposed to improve the QOL of residences. Gibson and Johnson (2013) do not however note any problem with QOL as a core aspect of CPTED definitions. Ekblom’s (2013) revised definition of CPTED still notes that improvement of QOL is through enhanced community safety.

Bentuk et al. (2012) CPTED implementation guide for Malaysia notes QOL twice when referring to the definition of CPTED and how it reduces crime rate. No further explanations of QOL and measuring its improvement after CPTED interventions are installed. The City of Abbotsford (2013) guidebook on CPTED does not even mention QOL at all. New Zealand Health Promotion Agency (2015) mentions QOL three times and only when alluding to the definition of CPTED. However, the guidebook focuses on quality of the environment which is mentioned nine times across the entire guidebook.

Matijosaitiene and Dambriunas (2015), when looking at possibilities of application of CPTED in Lithuania note QOL just once also when referring to its definition. To Matijosaitiene and Dambriunas (2015), the appropriate design and application of the built and surrounding environment can improve the QOL by deterring crime and reducing the fear of crime.

In the 58 sample articles under study, the design process and fear of crime were closely associated with QOL. Suggesting that CPTEDs efficacy was mainly associated with the design process and fear of crime. Not the reduction in crime. This aspect was conspicuously missing.

CPTED–QOL relationship – a discussion

The elaborate illustrations given above, drawn from various papers and guidebooks, indicate that QOL is considered an integral part of CPTED theory owing to its existence in the structure of CPTED definitions and slight mentions in CPTED texts. However, there is a clear lack of focus on the implications of QOL, as demonstrated by scanty discussions on the concept.

In addition, living in a crime-free society and feeling safe and secure has always been associated with a better QOL for communities. This is well appreciated by urban planners, crime experts and economic advisers. CPTED seeks to reduce crime incidence and fear of crime. Safety and security have a direct impact on QOL, and yet the relationship between the two has not been adequately studied.

Given that proving CPTED outcomes are directly attributed to crime reduction as opposed to other miscellaneous factors is not easy, directly attributing improved QOL to CPTED interventions will also be challenging. However, first-generation CPTED focuses on physical factors within the built environment that offer/deny the opportunity for crime, whereas second-generation CPTED attempts to align itself with social implications and elements of first-generation CPTED in crime prevention. This expansion of CPTED will undoubtedly increase the challenges CPTED faces because now the impact of CPTED on social interactions will also require focus.

The environment sphere (physical security and safety) seems to align with QOL’s physical and social factors that contribute to QOL of individuals. However, CPTED’s crime-deterring ability has not been conclusively proven. At least not in the statistical sense.

Based on crime research in CPTED spheres and economics circles, all crime prevention and safety-improving approaches, in theory, lead to an improvement of QOL because they indirectly improve the economic environment of society members. Furthermore, CPTED is premised on the ability to improve feelings of safety and reduce crime incidence. Both of which have not been conclusively proved. Surveys post-CPTED implementation have readily shown mixed results. The evidence is simply not enough, hence requiring more innovative research approaches to try and solve this dilemma.

Crime reduction and improved feelings of safety have rarely been directly associated with a reduction in the QOL for most people. Low crime rates, feelings of safety and absence of fear from crime are by default assumed to be aspects of a better QOL life. It is in this aspect that CPTED has the most fundamental challenges.

CPTED–QOL subjectivity

QOL entails the physical, social and economic aspects of an individual’s livelihood. CPTED, on the other hand, also seeks to make physical changes to the built environment and has increasingly been trying to expand to cover social aspects of crime whose values are espoused by community/second-generation CPTED. Johansen (2021) acknowledged that the major problem facing QOL is the lack of a universal QOL determination. This is primarily because it appears to encompass everything in the health of an individual, other external factors and an individual’s ideal life in comparison to their current existence.

The subjectivity involved in QOL makes generating a CPTED–QOL measurement framework quite difficult, which affects further understanding of the CPTED–QOL relationship. Being able to measure CPTED’s impact on QOL will enable its improvement. Measurement in the scientific process has always been associated with meaningful progress. The great Scottish–Irish physicist, William Thompson of the 19^th Century, also known as Lord Kelvin, noted the importance of measurement. According to Lord Kelvin, “What is not defined cannot be measured. What is not measured cannot be improved. What is not improved is always degraded” Cai et al. (2021, p.19). CPTED’s impact on QOL must, therefore, be measured and explained.

In instances where crime incidences were reduced post-CPTED implementation, CPTED is hailed as having a positive impact on QOL. However, when crime increases post-CPTED, there is an insufficient explanation for this, except that CPTED has been done wrongly. The mixed results of CPTED effectiveness in crime prevention and improving feelings of safety have ensured that CPTED is labeled as rigid and unable to adapt to change.

This lack of adaptability is a key criticism of CPTED. CPTED is therefore seen as unable to adapt to the social and other numerous dynamics interacting in complex ways in different contexts whose factors are in a state of flux. However, researchers do not really acknowledge that CPTED might be affecting the social dynamics of individuals in ways that are not yet understood. Hence, a probable reason why the results are inconclusive. How CPTED affects different facets of the QOL of an individual, considering QOL is also about a person’s ideal life and hence very subjective, is not understood. Even less focus is given to the outcomes of CPTED interventions that result in a spike in crime post-CPTED. Crime increase is likely to affect QOL.

The overall body of evidence to support CPTED’s ability to reduce crime is insufficient, so much so that a simple Google search on CPTED and a reduction of crime presents you with the stack results to suggest that it has no impact on crime. CPTED’s claims that the improvement of QOL is a reduction in crime incidence and safety. It is imperative that this relationship is given more attention, considering the mixed outcomes of CPTED interventions. Without adequate research on CPTED–QOL relationship, this will never be clear.

In addition, the subjective nature of QOL has made it harder to measure. We do not know how to measure an improvement in the QOL after CPTED interventions have been applied. Which aspects of the community should we look at? And for how long? These are some pertinent questions that arise with a critical analysis of the import of QOL as an outcome of CPTED. Furthermore, directly attributing CPTED interventions to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime is not a straightforward matter primarily because of a myriad of complex factors that are at interplay in a community setting.

QOL is subjective since it is the interplay between a person’s ideal life in comparison to their actual life. A deeper understanding of the CPTED–QOL relationship will have to account for this subjectivity.

Furthermore, CPTED’s focus on crime incidence when measuring the impact of CPTED postimplementation might lead research to ignore other unknown crucial interactions and factors in a setting that have been affected by CPTED. This oversimplification is what leads to CPTED’s impact on QOL to be erroneously unquestioned, and yet there are still a lot of fundamental gaps in CPTED’s impact on crime and safety.

One way to look at this is to assume that zero crime and absolute safety are the ideal QOL of an individual and, therefore, develop indicators to measure how far off from this ideal mark one is after CPTED interventions and, hence, how QOL has been improved. Or to use the difficult route of collecting an individual’s ideal desires, factor in crime and see how CPTED contributes to this.

Figures

Figure 1

Frequency of QOL mention

Table 1

QOL and explanation attempts cross-tabulation

	Explanation level
	No explanation (mentions of CPTED only)	Moderate explanation (passing attempts)	Very little attempt	Total
QOL_Freq
Zero times	7	0	1	8
1–10 times	7	1	0	8
Over 10 times	0	0	1	1
Over 20 times	0	1	0	1
Total	14	2	2	18

Source: Authors’ own creation

Table 2

Cross-tabulation of design process and fear of crime

		Fear of crime		Total
		Yes	No
Design process	Yes	11	0	11
	No	0	7	7
Total		11	7	18

Source: Authors’ own creation

Appendix

List of articles that were quantitatively analyzed

Arabi, M., Saberi Naseri, T. and Jahdi, R. (2020), “Use all generation of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) for design urban historical fabric (case study: the Central area of Tehran metropolis, Eastern oudlajan)”, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 519-533, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2019.11.003.

Byun, G. and Ha, M. (2023), “Environmental factors affecting fear of crime among young women on streets in Seoul”, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 3065-3081, doi: 10.1080/13467581.2023.2172338.

Cozens, P., Babb, C. and Stefani, D. (2023), “Exploring and developing crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) audits: an iterative process”, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1057/s41300-022-00170-0.

Huang, D., Ceccato, V. and Kyttä, M. (2022), “Safety perceptions in university campuses: the role of environment”, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 266-285, doi: 10.1057/s41300-022-00148-y.

Izadifar, A., Yazdanfar, S., Hosseini, S. and Norouzian-Maleki, S. (2015), “Relationship between support of social activities and fear of crime in Iran residential complex”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 170, pp. 575-585, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.059.

Marvi, L.T. and Behzadfar, M. (2015), “Local sustainability with emphasis on CPTED approach, the case of Ab-Kooh neighbourhood in Mash-Had”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 201, pp. 409-417, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.194.

Marvi, L.T. and Behzadfar, M. (2019), “Third-Generation crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)”, Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 6, doi: 10.3390/socsci8060182.

Thani, S.K.S.O., Hashim, N.H.M. and Ismail, W.H.W. (2016), “Surveillance by design: assessment using principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in urban parks”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 234, pp. 506-514, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.269.

Rahmania, M. and Zarandib, M.M. (2015), “Determine the environmental factors influencing increase security in residential design”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 201, pp. 234-242, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.172.

Cozens, P. and van der Linde, T. (2015), “Perceptions of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) at Australian railway stations”, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 73-92, doi: 10.5038/2375-0901.18.4.5.

Králová, K., Šoltés, V. and Kotalová, N. (2021), “Protection of transport terminals through the application of the CPTED concept”, Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 55, pp. 1593-1598, doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2021.07.148.

Sakip, S.R.M., Johari, N. and Salleh, M.N.M. (2012), “The relationship between crime prevention through environmental design and fear of crime”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 68, pp. 628-636, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.254.

Navarrete-Hernandez, P., Luneke, A., Truffello, R. and Fuentes, L. (2023), “Planning for fear of crime reduction: assessing the impact of public space regeneration on safety perceptions in deprived neighbourhoods”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 237, p. 104809, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104809.

Pandey, D. and Sehgal, V. (2023), “Examining the effect of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) on plotted development especially for women’s safety: a pilot”, Indian Journal of Natural Sciences, Vol. 14 No. 77, available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/371350089.

Risdiana, D.M. and Susanto, T.D. (2019), “The safe city: conceptual model development – a systematic literature review”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 161, pp. 291-299, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.126.

Saraiva, M., Amante, A., Santos, H. and Ribeiro, P. (2021), “Building a CPTED research culture in Portugal: a bibliometric and social network analysis”, Security Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 429-457, doi: 10.1057/s41284-020-00241-7.

List of thematically reviewed articles

Bentuk, R., Selamat, B., and Pelaksanaan, P. (2012), “Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED); implementation guide”, Ministry of Housing and Malaysia, Department of Town and Country Planning, Local Government, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, available at: www.townplan.gov.my

Bernasco, W. and Block, R. (2011), “Robberies in Chicago: a block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 33-57, doi: 10.1177/0022427810384135.

Cai, T., Verze, P., Truls, E. and Johansen, B. (2021), “The quality-of-Life definition: where are we going?”, Uro, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 14-22, doi: 10.3390/uro1010003.

Caulkins, P. and Kleiman, R.A. (2014), How Much Crime is Drug-Related? History, Limitations, and Potential Improvements of Estimation Methods, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Washington, DC.

City of Abbotsford (2013), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (Guide Book), City of Abbotsford, Abbotsford.

Cozens, P.M. (2011), “Urban planning and environmental criminology: towards a new perspective for safer cities”, Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 481-508, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2011.582357.

Cozens, P. and Love, T. (2015), “A review and current status of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)”, Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 393-412, doi: 10.1177/0885412215595440.

Cozens, P. and Melenhorst, P. (2014), “Exploring community perceptions of crime and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in Botswana”, British Criminology Conference, pp. 65-83. British Society of Criminology, Vol. 14, available at: www.britsoccrim.org

Crowe, T.D. (2000), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design: Applications of Architectural Design and Space Management Concepts, (2nd ed) Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

Crowe, T.D., and Zahm, D.L. (1994), “Crime prevention through environmental design”, Land Development Magazine, pp. 22-27.

Ekblom, P. (1997), “Gearing up against crime: a dynamic framework to help designers keep up with the adaptive criminal in a changing world”, International Journal of Risk, Security & Crime Prevention, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 249-265.

Ekblom, P. (2013), “Redesigning the Langua0ge and concepts of crime prevention through environmental design”, Reconstructing CPTED. Paper Presented at the 6th Ajman International Urban Planning Conference, City and Security, March, Ajman, United Arab Emirates.

Henry, S. (2012), “Expanding our thinking on theorizing criminology and criminal justice? The place of evolutionary perspectives in integrative criminological theory. Special edition”, Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology. Special Edition, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-89.

Jacobs, J. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House Inc, New York, NY.

Jeffery, C.R. (1999), “CPTED, past, present and future”, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Newsletter, Vol. 3, pp. 1-8, available at: www.cpted.net/

Johnson, D. and Gibson, V. (2013), “CPTED, but not as We know it: investigating the conflict of frameworks and terminology in crime prevention Through”, Security Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 1-20, doi: 10.1057/sj.2013.19.

Kavakli, M., Kavakli, K. and Gao, Y. (2004), “Crime prevention through environmental design in virtual reality”, The 9th Annual International CPTED Conference, Brisbane, Australia, International Security Management & Crime Prevention Institute.

Letch, J., McGlinn, E., Bell, J.F., Downing, E. and Cook, D.M. (2011), “An exploration of 1st and 2nd generation CPTED for end of year school leavers at Rottnest island”, 4th Australian Security and Intelligence Conference, pp. 38–48, available at: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/asi

McCord, E. and Ratcliffe, J. (2009), “Intensity value analysis and the criminogenic effects of land use features on local crime patterns”, Crime Patterns & Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 17-30.

Marzbali, M.H., Abdullah, A., Razak, N.A. and Maghsoodi Tilaki, M.J. (2011), “A review of the effectiveness of crime prevention by design approaches towards sustainable development”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 160-172, available at: www.ccsenet.org/jsd

Matijosaitiene, I. and Dambriunas, M. (2015), “Possibilities of application of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in Lithuanian commercial objects”, European Scientific Journal, pp. 11-20. (Special Edition).

Mihinjac, M. and Saville, G. (2019), “Third-generation crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)”, Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 1-20, doi: 103390/socsci8060182.

Ministry of Justice (2005), National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand – Part 1: Seven Qualities of Safer Places, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.

Natarajan, M. (2016), “Crime in developing countries: the contribution of crime science”, Crime Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-10, doi: 51186/s40163-016-0056-7.

National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) (2013), “Crime prevention through environmental design”, Guide Book, available at: www.ncpc.gov.sg

New Zealand Health Promotion Agency (2015), “Guidelines for crime prevention through environmental design”, New Zealand.

Nocheck, E.A. (2013), “Connecting site safety, design and management: exploring and applying CPTED principles in planning policies and practices for green township”, Ohio [Masters Dissertation], University of Florida, Gainesville:.

Cozens, P., McLeod, S. and Matthews, J. (2018), “Visual representations in crime prevention: exploring the use of building information modelling (BIM) to investigate burglary and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)”, Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 63-83, doi: 10.1057/s41300-018-0039-6.

Police, U. (2018), Annual Crime Report, Uganda Police, Kampala: Uganda Police. Kampala.

Radosevich, M.R. (2012), “Crime prevention through environmental design and crime rates in apartment settings ”, [Master’s Thesis]. Denver: Regis University.

Reynald, D.M. and Elffers, H. (2009), “The future of Newman’s defensible space theory: linking defensible space and the routine activities of place”, European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 25-46, doi: 10.1177/1477370808098103.

Roncek, D.W. and Maier, P.A. (1991), “Bars, blocks and crimes revisited: linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of ‘hot spots”, Criminology, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 725-753, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01086.x.

Ruzevicius, J. (2017), “Quality of life and its components’ measurement”, 17th Toulon-Verona International Conference Proceedings, Verona, pp. 317-334, available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/26496151.

Sampson, R.J. and Raudenbush, S.W. (1999), “Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighbourhoods”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 603-651, doi: 10.1086/210356.

Songole, H.S. (2018), “The role of urban planning and design in the prevention of crime in Kampala city: a case study of Kabalagala commercial district ”, [Masters Dissertation], Makerere University, Architecture and Physical Planning, Makerere University, Kampala.

Songole, H.S. (2021), “The role of geographical juxtaposition in Kabalagala”, Urban, Planning & Transport Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 132-170, doi: 10.1080/21650020.2021.1873175.

UN (2016), “The world cities in 2016”, Habitat, United Nations, Nairobi.

Van der Weele, J. (2017), “Broken window effect”, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_624-1.

Wilcox, P.Q. and Cabrera, D., S., J. ” (2004), “Busy places & broken windows? Towards defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models”, The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 185-207.

Yusoff, N. (2020), “The need of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) to prevent misbehaviour among Malaysia football fans”, Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 3804-3808.