Antisocial behaviour - Revision history

Olav: /* Social impacts */

2013-07-29T19:20:50Z

Social impacts

Alexander: /* Social impacts */

2013-06-27T16:13:24Z

Social impacts

Alexander: /* Social impacts */

2013-06-27T16:13:04Z

Social impacts

Albert at 09:00, 17 May 2013

2013-05-17T09:00:17Z

Albert: /* Safety impact */

2013-05-17T08:55:21Z

Safety impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-05-06T07:20:22Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-05-06T07:05:27Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-05-06T07:04:30Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-05-06T07:03:51Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-05-06T06:48:11Z

Economic impact

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ===Social impacts===
-A known social impact of antisocial behaviour is the increased citizens perception of insecurity and fear of crime. This will usually widen the gap between "perceived" and "actual" security of the area. This could, on a personal level, result in an increased feeling of insecurity of society as a whole, as individuals tend to infer societal security from immediate environmental clues.
+A known social impact of antisocial behaviour is the increased citizens perception of insecurity and fear of crime. This will usually widen the gap between "perceived" and "actual" security of the area. This could, on a personal level, result in an increased feeling of insecurity of society as a whole, as individuals tend to infer societal security from immediate environmental clues. The clustering of activities associated with the night time economy, such as concentrations of pubs and clubs, may fuel antisocial behaviour and make certain districts ‘no go’ areas at night for people not geared at night time economy.
-The clustering of activities associated with the night time economy, such as concentrations of pubs and clubs, may fuel antisocial behaviour and make certain districts ‘no go’ areas at night for people not geared at night time economy.
 ===Economic impact===

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 A known social impact of antisocial behaviour is the increased citizens perception of insecurity and fear of crime. This will usually widen the gap between "perceived" and "actual" security of the area. This could, on a personal level, result in an increased feeling of insecurity of society as a whole, as individuals tend to infer societal security from immediate environmental clues.
 The clustering of activities associated with the night time economy, such as concentrations of pubs and clubs, may fuel antisocial behaviour and make certain districts ‘no go’ areas at night for people not geared at night time economy.
-'''Optional additional text'''
-Known social impacts of antisocial behaviour include changing citizens perception of (in)security and fear of crime. This usually happens in a way that has an effect on the gap between "felt" and "factual" security, since individuals tend to make - correct or incorrect - reasoning on societal security as a whole based on immediate environmental clues. This is known as the "broken glass phenomenon".
-* Clustering of certain activities associated with the night time economy, such as high concentrations of pubs and clubs can fuel anti social behaviour and make certain districts ‘no go’ areas at night.
-* Natural surveillance can be increased through reducing the number of access points in public spaces so that law abiding activity is increased in remaining routes. This also serves to increase rather than dilute public activity along these routes.
 ===Economic impact===

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ===Social impacts===
-A known social impact of antisocial behaviour is the increased citizens perception of insecurity and fear of crime. This will usually widen the gap between "percieved" and "actual" security of the area. This could, on a personal level, result in an increased feeling of insecurity of society as a whole, as individuals tend to infer societal security from immediate environmental clues.
+A known social impact of antisocial behaviour is the increased citizens perception of insecurity and fear of crime. This will usually widen the gap between "perceived" and "actual" security of the area. This could, on a personal level, result in an increased feeling of insecurity of society as a whole, as individuals tend to infer societal security from immediate environmental clues.
 The clustering of activities associated with the night time economy, such as concentrations of pubs and clubs, may fuel antisocial behaviour and make certain districts ‘no go’ areas at night for people not geared at night time economy.

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 ===Safety impact===
-Antisocial behaviour can have considerable impact on safety. Littering of sharp objects (such as broken glass), ,
+Antisocial behaviour can have considerable impact on safety. Littering of sharp objects (such as broken glass), drunk behaviour, reckless driving and behaviour (like glue sniffing) that can be copied by the young all can have serious safety consequences. Apart from these effects, antisocial behaviour can cause a serious degradation of the safety perception of citizens.
 == Measures ==

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 ===Safety impact===
+Antisocial behaviour can have considerable impact on safety. Littering of sharp objects (such as broken glass), ,
 == Measures ==

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 Acts of antisocial behaviour do not just create direct costs, but can also be a major detriment to the image of a neighbourhood, and as a result trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic effects|secondary economic impact]] on, for example, property value, local businesses, tourism, etc. The perception of security is a relevant issue in case of frequent antisocial behaviour, since signs of disorderly disorder, rubbish and litter, noise, and so on do not help to make people feel safe. In addition, one could consider the opportunity costs of police and other public services (like health care services for victim support).
-Security measures such as [[Designing out approach|designing out crime]] can prevent antisocial behaviour, but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures|costs]]. Surveillance, for example, is costly and there is always the risk of [[The economics of crime#Crime displacement|crime displacement]]<ref>The relocation of crime from one place, time, target, offence, or tactic to another as a result of some crime prevention initiative (Guerette (2009). Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref>.
+Security measures such as [[Designing out approach|designing out crime]] can prevent antisocial behaviour, but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures|costs]]. Unnatural/organised surveillance, for example, is costly and there is always the risk of [[The economics of crime#Crime displacement|crime displacement]]<ref>The relocation of crime from one place, time, target, offence, or tactic to another as a result of some crime prevention initiative (Guerette (2009). Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref>. Natural surveillance and defensible space have less long term costs, but demand investments during the design and realisation phase. With the help of [[Economic tools|economic tools]] such as [[Social cost-benefit analysis|social cost-benefit analysis]] it is possible to overview the costs and future benefits of security measures in order to decide which types of measures are best suited for a specific urban planning situation.
 ===Mobility impact===

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 * Responsive costs to antisocial behaviour (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, prosecution, trial, etc.).
+Acts of antisocial behaviour do not just create direct costs, but can also be a major detriment to the image of a neighbourhood, and as a result trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic effects|secondary economic impact]] on, for example, property value, local businesses, tourism, etc. The perception of security is a relevant issue in case of frequent antisocial behaviour, since signs of disorderly disorder, rubbish and litter, noise, and so on do not help to make people feel safe. In addition, one could consider the opportunity costs of police and other public services (like health care services for victim support).
+Security measures can prevent antisocial behaviour, but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures|costs]]. Target hardening, for example, is costly and there is always the risk of [[The economics of crime#Crime displacement|crime displacement]]<ref>The relocation of crime from one place, time, target, offence, or tactic to another as a result of some crime prevention initiative (Guerette (2009). Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref>.
-The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism are for about 14% the result of preventive measures (security and insurance), and for 75% the result of physical damage and mental harm. The remaining part are costs in response to crime (detection and prevention, enforcement, trial, support)<ref>SEO Economic Research (2007). De kosten van criminaliteit</ref>. Vandalism is a high-volume crime. In the Netherlands, vandalism and public order offences make up for about 25% of the number of offences committed in 2005<ref>SEO Economic research (2007). De kosten van criminaliteit.</ref>). This is a relevant fact for urban planners, since the cost of security measures can be earned back with a reduction of the frequency of acts of vandalism, the [[Economic impact of security measures|economic impact of security measures]].
-Acts of vandalism do not just create direct costs, but also have a lasting social and economic impact on the entire area ([[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime|secondary economic impact of crime]]). Obvious examples of these secondary economic effects are reduced house prices and costs of void properties. Vandalism can make the local environment an unpleasant place to live and work, creating a significant negative impact on real estate value and local business revenues<ref>See Gibbons, S. (2004). The costs of urban property crime. ''The Economic Journal'', 114 (499). ISSN 0013-0133.</ref>. Crime prone areas with a long-standing reputation for suffering from much crime are subjects of high mobility of residents, vandalism, empty lots and buildings, businesses with extreme security measures, etc. On top of that, vandalism can lead to less public funding by local authorities (in terms of investments in social infrastructure). As a result, "crime-prone areas usually stay that way"<ref>Pease, K & M. Gill (2011). Home security and place design: some evidence and its policy implications.</ref>. The perception of security is a relevant issue in case of frequent vandalism, since signs of broken windows, makeshift security measures around dwellings, blaring alarms and continuous police surveillance do not help to make people feel safe, even though the actual frequency of criminal events has declined. In addition, one could consider the opportunity costs of police and other public services (like health care services for victim support).
-In theory, security measures can prevent vandalism, but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures|costs]]. Target hardening, for example, is costly and there is always the risk of [[The economics of crime#Crime displacement|crime displacement]]<ref>The relocation of crime from one place, time, target, offence, or tactic to another as a result of some crime prevention initiative (Guerette (2009). Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref>.
-Antisocial behaviour leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and a indirect ([[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime|secondary]]) way<ref>Primary economic impact (or direct effects) are generally defined as the initial, immediate economic output generated by a specific cause (in this case a criminal offence). Secondary economic impact (or indirect effects) are generated each time a subsequent transaction is made, for example, the impact of crime on the real estate value in the neighbourhood.</ref>. Direct costs of antisocial behaviour come in the form of:
-* Preventive costs in anticipation of antisocial behaviour (e.g. security and insurance costs);
-* Material and immaterial costs as a consequence of antisocial behaviour (e.g. physical damage, repairs, health costs, mental harm); and
-* Responsive costs to antisocial behaviour (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, prosecution, trial, etc.).
-Moreover, antisocial behaviour can be a major detriment to the image of a neighbourhood, and as a result trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic effects|secondary economic impact]] on, for example, property value, local businesses, tourism, etc. In addition, one could consider the opportunity costs of police and other public services (like health care services for victim support).
 ===Mobility impact===