Security issue: Vandalism - Revision history

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:49:19Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:48:11Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-11-15T15:47:36Z

Economic impact

Olav: /* Contributing circumstances */

2013-07-29T18:59:11Z

Contributing circumstances

Olav: /* Description */

2013-07-29T18:58:00Z

Description

Olav: /* Description */

2013-07-29T18:56:21Z

Description

Olav: /* Economic impact */

2013-07-29T18:54:04Z

Economic impact

Olav: /* Economic impact */

2013-07-29T18:53:33Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-05-06T07:25:50Z

Economic impact

John P: /* Economic impact */

2013-05-02T10:15:26Z

Economic impact

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ===Economic impact===
-Vandalism 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 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 name="SEOcrim">SEO Economic Research (2007): De kosten van criminaliteit [The cost of crime]</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 name="SEOcrim"/> 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]].
+Vandalism 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 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 name="SEOcrim">SEO Economic Research (2007): De kosten van criminaliteit [The cost of crime]</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 name="SEOcrim"/> 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>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).

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Vandalism 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 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 name="SEOcrim">SEO Economic Research (2007): De kosten van criminaliteit [The cost of crime]</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 name="SEOcrim"/> 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).
+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>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, 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 45: / Line 45: @@
 ===Economic impact===
-Vandalism 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 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 name="SEOcrim">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 name="SEOcrim"/> 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]].
+Vandalism 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 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 name="SEOcrim">SEO Economic Research (2007): De kosten van criminaliteit [The cost of crime]</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 name="SEOcrim"/> 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).
+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>. 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, 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, 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.
 ===Mobility impact===

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 | Shops in the area || Increases likelihood of being selected target || Retailing and manufacturing premises have a much greater chance of falling victim to vandalism than domestic premises<ref>Mirrlees-Black Curiona and Ross Alec, ''Crime against retail and manufacturing premises: findings from the 1994 Commercial Victimisation Survey'', Home Office Research Study 146, copyright 1995, ISBN 1 85893 554 7</ref>.
 |-
-| Crowds || Increases level of aggression. || Vandalism is a form of aggression, and this is (amongst others) influenced by crowding<ref name="goldstein"/>.
+| Crowds || Increases level of aggression || Vandalism is a form of aggression, and this is (amongst others) influenced by crowding<ref name="goldstein"/>.
 |-
 | Alcohol || Decreases inhibitions || The use of alcohol decrease the inhibitions to commit vandalism.
 |-
-| Presence of adolescents. || Increases the number of potential offenders. || According to Tygert<ref>Tygert, C. (1988). ''Public school vandalism: Toward a synthesis of theories and transition
+| Presence of adolescents || Increases the number of potential offenders. || According to Tygert<ref>Tygert, C. (1988). ''Public school vandalism: Toward a synthesis of theories and transition
 to paradigm analysis.'', Adolescence, 23, 187-199.</ref> and Zweig and Ducey<ref>Zweig, A., & Ducey, M. H. (1978), ''A paradigmatic field: A review of research on school vandalism'', Hackensack, NJ: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.</ref>, vandalism reaches its peak frequency in seventh grade, and then progressively decreases with each succeeding grade.
 |-
 | Vulnerable objects in area || Increases number of targets. || Public furniture with easy access which is easily damaged, especially if failing with spectacular effects (such as glass panes) are attractive targets for vandals.
 |-
-| High levels of vandalism in the vicinity. || Increases likelihood of targeting. || As is true for all forms of aggression, the single best predictor of future vandalistic behaviour is similar past behaviour<ref name="goldstein"/>. Having known vandals in the vicinity thus strongly increases the chance to fall victim to vandalism.
+| High levels of vandalism in the vicinity || Increases likelihood of targeting.. || As is true for all forms of aggression, the single best predictor of future vandalistic behaviour is similar past behaviour<ref name="goldstein"/>. Having known vandals in the vicinity thus strongly increases the chance to fall victim to vandalism.
 |-
-| Low level of social monitoring. || Decreases level of social correction. || A decreased perceived risk of detection and correction decreases the perceived need for restraint of unwanted behaviour.
+| Low level of social monitoring || Decreases level of social correction. || A decreased perceived risk of detection and correction decreases the perceived need for restraint of unwanted behaviour.
 |-
-| Low level of physical monitoring (e.g. cameras). || Decreases likelihood of detection. || This reduces the possibilities of intervening and increases the likelihood of the conflict escalating. Low levels of physical monitoring contributes to less enforcement of the law, which undermines other efforts to prevent assault and other crimes occurring.
+| Low level of physical monitoring (e.g. cameras) || Decreases likelihood of detection. || This reduces the possibilities of intervening and increases the likelihood of the conflict escalating. Low levels of physical monitoring contributes to less enforcement of the law, which undermines other efforts to prevent assault and other crimes occurring.
 |-
-| Long reaction times or inadequate action of intervention force. || Decreases likelihood of apprehension || Untimely or inappropriate reactions to violence lead to a perception of little control, which will increase perceived risk for the public and decrease perceived risk for the perpetrators. Also, reducing the impact of an assault (by timely intervention) will also be impossible and lead to greater effects of incidents.
+| Long reaction times or inadequate action of intervention force || Decreases likelihood of apprehension. || Untimely or inappropriate reactions to violence lead to a perception of little control, which will increase perceived risk for the public and decrease perceived risk for the perpetrators. Also, reducing the impact of an assault (by timely intervention) will also be impossible and lead to greater effects of incidents.
 |-
-| Incompatible zonings. || Increases of the likelihood of conflict. || Incompatible zonings, and activities therein, can increase the likelihood of vulnerable groups and potential offenders meeting. The composition and compatibility of adjoining land uses should be sufficiently considered by urban planners.
+| Incompatible zonings || Increases of the likelihood of conflict. || Incompatible zonings, and activities therein, can increase the likelihood of vulnerable groups and potential offenders meeting. The composition and compatibility of adjoining land uses should be sufficiently considered by urban planners.
 |-
-| High levels of unemployment || Increases likelihood of targeting || High levels of unemployment are associated with higher levels of vandalism<ref>Kepple NJ, Freisthler B., ''Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries.'',J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Jul;73(4):523-30</ref>.
+| High levels of unemployment || Increases likelihood of targeting. || High levels of unemployment are associated with higher levels of vandalism<ref>Kepple NJ, Freisthler B., ''Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries.'',J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Jul;73(4):523-30</ref>.
 |-
-| Low levels of ownership || Decreases the inhibitions for committing the crime || Uncertainty of ownership can reduce responsibility and increase the likelihood of crime and anti-social behaviour going unchallenged<ref>Home Office, ''Safer Places. The planning system and crime prevention'', 2004</ref>.
+| Low levels of ownership || Decreases the inhibitions for committing the crime. || Uncertainty of ownership can reduce responsibility and increase the likelihood of crime and anti-social behaviour going unchallenged<ref>Home Office, ''Safer Places. The planning system and crime prevention'', 2004</ref>.
 |-
-| Low levels of maintenance|| Decreases the inhibitions for committing the crime || Studies showed that low levels of maintenance and aesthetic quality are associated with high rates of vandalism<ref name="goldstein"/>. Designing for easy maintenance and a (for the user) pleasing aesthetic appearance can therefore reduce the risk of vandalism.
+| Low levels of maintenance|| Decreases the inhibitions for committing the crime. || Studies showed that low levels of maintenance and aesthetic quality are associated with high rates of vandalism<ref name="goldstein"/>. Designing for easy maintenance and a (for the user) pleasing aesthetic appearance can therefore reduce the risk of vandalism.
 |}

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 == Description ==
-The stereo type vandal is a young (adolescent) man, in a small unorganised group or alone. In addition to this, youngsters prone to vandalism often appear to have a poor understanding of the impact of their behaviour on others, and are primarily concerned with the consequences of such behaviour for themselves, such as getting caught. In their view, public property in a real sense belongs to no one<ref name="goldstein">Goldstein, Arnold P., ''Controlling Vandalism: The Person-Environment Duet'', School oriented interventions, pp 290-321</ref>. Vandalism appears to be useless, but one can better understand the behaviour of a vandal when considering it in the context of adolescence, when peer influence is a particularly powerful motivator. Most delinquent acts are carried out by groups of youths, and vandalism is no exception. Participating in vandalism often helps a youth to maintain or enhance his or her status among peers. This status comes with little risk since, in contrast to playing a game or fighting, there are no winners or losers<ref name=dedel">[http://www.popcenter.org/problems/vandalism/ Dedel Johnson Kelly, ''School Vandalism and Break-Ins'', Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Guide No. 35, August 2005]</ref>.
+The stereo type vandal is a young (adolescent) man, in a small unorganised group or alone. In addition to this, youngsters prone to vandalism often appear to have a poor understanding of the impact of their behaviour on others, and are primarily concerned with the consequences of such behaviour for themselves, such as getting caught. In their view, public property in a real sense belongs to no one<ref name="goldstein">Goldstein, Arnold P., ''Controlling Vandalism: The Person-Environment Duet'', School oriented interventions, pp 290-321</ref>. Vandalism appears to be useless, but one can better understand the behaviour of a vandal when considering it in the context of adolescence, when peer influence is a particularly powerful motivator. Most delinquent acts are carried out by groups of youths, and vandalism is no exception. Participating in vandalism often helps a youth to maintain or enhance his or her status among peers. This status comes with little risk since there are no winners or losers, in contrast to playing a game or fighting.<ref name=dedel">[http://www.popcenter.org/problems/vandalism/ Dedel Johnson Kelly, ''School Vandalism and Break-Ins'', Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Guide No. 35, August 2005]</ref>
 == Contributing circumstances ==