Security issue: Graffiti - Revision history

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:21:53Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:21:11Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:20:48Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:20:16Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:19:03Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:10:45Z

Economic impact

Olav: /* Mobility impact */

2013-08-15T16:15:22Z

Mobility impact

Olav: /* Safety impact */

2013-07-29T19:15:52Z

Safety impact

Olav: /* Mobility impact */

2013-07-29T19:15:10Z

Mobility impact

Olav: /* Economic impact */

2013-07-29T19:13:57Z

Economic impact

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 ===Economic impact===
-As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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> The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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 [The cost of crime]</ref>.
+As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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> The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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 [The cost of crime].</ref>.
 In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHA>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008) or the American version. Online: http://www.graffitihurts.org/getfacts/faq.jsp.</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name = GHA></ref>

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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> The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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 [The cost of crime]</ref>.
-In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHU>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008) or the American version. Online: http://www.graffitihurts.org/getfacts/faq.jsp.</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name = GHA></ref>
+In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHA>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008) or the American version. Online: http://www.graffitihurts.org/getfacts/faq.jsp.</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name = GHA></ref>
 In theory, security measures can prevent vandalism, including graffiti but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures#Costs of security|costs]]. Organised surveillance or 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. Source Guerette,R.T. (2009): Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref> 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.

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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> The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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 [The cost of crime]</ref>.
-In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHU>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008) or the American version. Online: http://www.graffitihurts.org/getfacts/faq.jsp.</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name =GHA></ref>
+In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHU>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008) or the American version. Online: http://www.graffitihurts.org/getfacts/faq.jsp.</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name = GHA></ref>
 In theory, security measures can prevent vandalism, including graffiti but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures#Costs of security|costs]]. Organised surveillance or 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. Source Guerette,R.T. (2009): Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref> 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.

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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> The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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 [The cost of crime]</ref>.
-In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHU>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008).</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name =GHA></ref>
+In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHU>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008) or the American version. Online: http://www.graffitihurts.org/getfacts/faq.jsp.</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name =GHA></ref>
 In theory, security measures can prevent vandalism, including graffiti but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures#Costs of security|costs]]. Organised surveillance or 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. Source Guerette,R.T. (2009): Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref> 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.

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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> The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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 [The cost of crime]</ref>.
-In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008). Online: http://www.graffitihurts.com.au/cost.php</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref>See, e.g. "Graffiti Hurts Australia" (2008): Online: http://www.graffitihurts.com.au/cost.php</ref>
+In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref name=GHU>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008).</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009): Crime and Housing Prices; Gibbons, S. (2004): The Costs of urban property crime; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008): Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws.</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref name =GHA></ref>
 In theory, security measures can prevent vandalism, including graffiti but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures#Costs of security|costs]]. Organised surveillance or 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. Source Guerette,R.T. (2009): Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion. Tool Guide No. 10.</ref> 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.

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ===Mobility impact===
-Certain mobility objects are popular targets for graffiti, such as tunnels and fences near roads and railways or buses and railway vehicles. However, this doesn't cause a direct impact on mobility. It will only add costs for local governments and public transport companies as explained above in [[Economic impact|economic impacts]], and may lead to reduced traffic safety as explained below for [[Safety impact|safety impact]].
+Certain mobility objects are popular targets for graffiti, such as tunnels and fences near roads and railways or buses and railway vehicles. However, this doesn't cause a direct impact on mobility. It will only add costs for local governments and public transport companies as explained above in [[Economic impact|economic impacts]], and may lead to reduced traffic safety as explained below for |safety impact.
 Measures against grafiti on mobility objects are lighting near roads and stations or (camera) [[measure: Surveillance|surveillance]].

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 ===Safety impact===
-Graffiti on traffic signs may lead to dangerous situations as warnings can no longers be seen.
+Graffiti on traffic signs may lead to dangerous situations as warnings can no longers be seen propperly.
 == Measures ==

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 ===Economic impact===
-As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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>. The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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>.
+As a type of [[Vandalism#Economic impact|vandalism]], graffiti leads to considerable costs in both a direct ([[Economic effects of crime#Primary economic impact of crime|primary]]) and an 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> The direct [[Economic impact of security threats|economic impact]] of vandalism in general 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>.
-In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies<ref>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008). http://www.graffitihurts.com.au/cost.php</ref>. Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009) "Crime and Housing Prices"; Gibbons, S. (2004) "The Costs of urban property crime"; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008) "Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws".</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs<ref>See, e.g. "Graffiti Hurts Australia" (2008). http://www.graffitihurts.com.au/cost.php</ref>.
+In general, the (direct) costs to repair, replace, and clean up property defaced by graffiti are paid for by the communities, private property owners, small business and public agencies.<ref>Graffiti Hurts Australia (2008). http://www.graffitihurts.com.au/cost.php</ref> Moreover, the presence of graffiti can trigger [[Economic effects of crime#Secondary economic impact of crime |secondary economic impacts]]. Although most research studies conclude that criminal offences such as vandalism and graffiti can have a significant negative impact on real estate prices <ref>See, e.g. Ihlanfeldt, K & T. Mayock (2009) "Crime and Housing Prices"; Gibbons, S. (2004) "The Costs of urban property crime"; or Linden, L and J. Rockoff (2008) "Estimates of the Impact of Crime Risk on Property Values from Megan’s Laws".</ref>, there is still no real consensus on the extent of this impact. Moreover, graffiti (like vandalism) can have a negative impact on local businesses (as consumers decide to shop in other places), and can lead to the potential loss of funding for community organisation, youth groups and school programs.<ref>See, e.g. "Graffiti Hurts Australia" (2008). http://www.graffitihurts.com.au/cost.php</ref>
-In theory, security measures can prevent vandalism, including graffiti but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures#Costs of security|costs]]. Organised surveillance or 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> 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.
+In theory, security measures can prevent vandalism, including graffiti but not without [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures#Costs of security|costs]]. Organised surveillance or 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> 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===