TRANSPORT SAFETY & SECURITY
Crime Science
FEAR AND CRIME? IT'S IN THE DESIGN
What should local and regional governments, and transport authorities for that matter, do to prevent criminal activity in and around public transport facilities? Dr. Kate Bowers talks to Pedro Homem de Gouveia and Isobel Duxfield about the plausible benefits of taking a scientific approach
Liverpool street station in the UK at rush hour, © Shutterstock / Keith Gentry
Public Transport facilities (train and subway stations, bus stops, mobility hubs) are an important part of the passenger’s experience. Feelings of discomfort or fear in the use of these facilities discourage the shift to sustainable urban mobility.
Crime Science has shown that public transport facilities can attract criminal activity. But it has also shown there are effective methods to prevent it. Proper design and management of facilities can go a long way, which means this is not an issue that can be simply “left to the Police”. Local and regional governments and transport authorities can do a lot. This is a topic Dr Kate Bowers, Head of the Department of Security and Crime Science at University College London (UCL), has worked on extensively.
Safety and Security in Transit facilities
On 27 April 2021, POLIS’ Working Group for Safety & Security convened to discuss security of public transport facilities, bringing together a range of experts for a rigorous discussion with members on the structural underpinning security issues and explore practical solutions. The shift to sustainable mobility happens one user at a time. To prompt this choice, the user must be comfortable with the new mode of travel. This is a critical issue when it comes to public transport. A sense of insecurity can be a major deterrent. The meeting brought together a range of academic experts and POLIS members to share recent research and debate the way forward for more secure public transport.
Thinking Cities (TC): What is “Crime Science”, and why do we need it?
Kate Bowers (KB): Crime Science is about 20 years old. While previous approaches were more focused on understanding routes into offending we take, in contrast, a different approach. Using methods from a wide variety of disciplines, Crime Science examines the environments that are creating or enabling crime, with the specific goal of reducing it. It is a practice-oriented approach that has its roots in situational crime prevention. We look at the immediate environment first, the situation of the crime, and then, working with practitioners, produce evidence-based solutions for how such activity could be prevented and mitigated.
TC: Are there “ingredients” propelling crime?
KB: Crime is much more likely to occur when three elements converge – a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a potential crime setting. On top of that, we also have the absence of somebody or something that can prevent the crime from happening, what we may call a “guardian”. This guardian can be an individual, or another form of security. This is a really interesting and useful theory for us. If we can take one of those three factors away from a potential crime situation, we can prevent crime in that place and time. That is why it is so powerful for prevention.
TC: Is it about reducing opportunities, then?
KB: Yes, absolutely. Situational crime prevention is based on principles of opportunity. You do not just have to detect crime, you can also prevent it. This can be done by increasing guardianship but this is not just police presence. It involves, first of all, the design of the urban environment, the way we structure our surroundings. We can layout our environments in ways that decrease the opportunity for crime to occur. It is not about offender motivation – it is about manipulating the direct environment. The reason such an approach is useful is that it can be done immediately.
We can layout our environments in ways that decrease the opportunity for crime to occur. It is not about offender motivation – it is about manipulating the direct environment
© Shutterstock / Nora_n_0_ra
TC: So, this is not the long-term response (solve the underlying social issues), nor the short-term (more police). It is another way.
KB: This approach ‘builds in’ crime prevention, in the same way the long-term approach does, but it has immediate effects, which some longer-term social or educational strategies do not. This is not to say we do not need the long-term approaches too, but these immediate environmental changes are a good way of producing immediate and effective change.
TC: What makes public transport nodes a place of heightened criminal activity?
KB: Busy places tend to have a lot of the three ingredients we discussed before: offenders who know the place well, lots of potential targets, and little or no guardianship. Mass transit settings are a “pinch point” through which we have to travel. If design is not well thought through, guardianship becomes insufficient, and we get ideal conditions for crime to take place. There are separate risks associated with the vehicles, and with the stops or stations. Inside the vehicles – trains, trams, buses – there is a captive potential target and, at times, little guardianship, so there is high risk of sexual assault or theft, particularly during the night. In cities with a significant night economy, there is also a higher risk of vandalism and alcohol-induced crime. On the other hand, at stops and stations, you are likely to get slightly different types of crime that require a different response, such as at ticket control barriers, ticket fraud and assault of staff. If station platforms and corridors are set up with lots of blind spots, this opens the opportunity for further criminal activity. The way a station is designed has an impact on the propensity for crime.
TC: What about bus stops? What can we do there?
KB: Bus stops are interesting. Some years ago there was a study here in England that looked at pickpocketing in bus queues. It was an extraordinary piece of work because it was very obvious why crime was happening: people jostling to get on the bus and wallets being opened created optimum conditions for theft. So, the study authors considered how a redesign could help to prevent theft. They looked at how the queue could be redesigned, how it could be created as a segregated space, where it was clear people were queueing for the bus. You would only be there if you were boarding the bus, which discouraged people with other intentions from approaching. But other changes also bring opportunities – for example, now we that have card payments, this has dramatically reduced petty theft. This is another clear example of the environment adjusting criminal activity.
Now we that have card payments, this has dramatically reduced petty theft at bus stop queues. This is another clear example of the environment adjusting criminal activity
Professor Kate Bowers is Head of the Department of Security and Crime Science at University College London (UCL)
Video surveillance is also a way of altering the environment, by increasing guardianship. But there are so many bus stops that comprehensive surveillance is often impractical. Here, good lighting offers an answer. Illuminating spaces has been repeatedly shown to support vulnerable transport users. The location of the stops is another important issue: don’t place them in remote locations that leave people more exposed to victimisation.
TC: Beyond crime, what about fear?
KB: An interesting fact is that only a fraction of the population has had a direct experience of crime against them. The environment and the feelings it creates are incredibly powerful, particularly when it comes to fear. People don’t feel the same level of fear of crime in all situations, instead this varies depending on where they are and the time of days that they are in that place. . And if people feel less afraid in a certain space, they use it more, which increases guardianship.
TC: As we encourage people onto alternative modes of travel, fear of crime, including sexual harassment, seems to be a major deterrent. What can we do about it?
KB: Our task is to create environments that reduce fear of space. We need to think “how can we make this space less fearful for those who travel through it?”. Of course, we want transit environments that are aesthetically appealing, but we have to make sure the infrastructure is secure, and ‘feels’ secure. We want spaces that are user friendly, but abuser unfriendly. Neglecting the security implications of design can lead to crime problems, and design must be socially responsible.
Kate Bowers is Head of the Department of Security and Crime Science at University College London (UCL). Pedro Homem de Gouveia and Isobel Duxfield are, respectively, Senior Policy & Project Manager - Coordinator Governance & Integration - Coordinator Safety & Security and Communications and Membership Officer at POLIS Network. Contact them: pgouveia@polisnetwork.eu and iduxfield@polisnetwork.eu
Share now