Difference between revisions of "Antisocial behaviour"
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
== Attributing circumstances == |
== Attributing circumstances == |
||
| − | Circumstances that attribute to the occurance of antisocial behaviour, are <ref>Murphy, Deborah (2006) Anti-social behaviour: underlying causes and policy responses. Masters thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway.</ref>: |
+ | Circumstances that attribute to the occurance of antisocial behaviour, are <ref>Murphy, Deborah (2006) Anti-social behaviour: underlying causes and policy responses. Masters thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway.</ref><ref>Andrew Millie Anti-Social Behaviour, Behavioural Expectations and an Urban Aesthetic Br J Criminol (2008) 48(3): 379-394 first published online February 22, 2008 doi:10.1093/bjc/azm076 </ref>: |
* Low standards of living |
* Low standards of living |
||
* Low standards of parental discipline |
* Low standards of parental discipline |
||
Revision as of 16:05, 5 December 2012
Contents
Antisocial behaviour
Antisocial behaviour is an accumulation category of relatively small crimes that highly influence the security perception of citizens.
Description
The exact crimes that fall in this category vary from nation to nation, with the ruling law there, but examples of crimes that fall within this category are:
- Breach of the peace
- Conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress
- Affray (extending to both groups and single persons)
- Violent disorder
- Drunk and disorderly behaviour
- Drunk and incapable behaviour
- Breach of local banning orders
- Substance misuse such as glue sniffing
- Drinking alcohol on the streets /in public areas where banned
- Excessive noise coming from business / alarms / pubs and clubs
- Begging
- Prostitution related activity such as curb crawling and loitering
- Vehicle nuisance such as revving engines, racing, wheel and horn sounding
- Environmental damage such as littering/dumping
- Pubs or clubs serving alcohol after hours
- Hate incidents where abuse involves race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or disability
Attributing circumstances
Circumstances that attribute to the occurance of antisocial behaviour, are [1][2]:
- Low standards of living
- Low standards of parental discipline
- Low levels of social cohesion
- Low levels of social involvement and high community neglect
- Low amounts or quality of reaction on incidents
- Presence of drugs and alcohol accessed by young people
Impacts
The impacts of antisocial behaviour are diverse and can be very relevant to the security perception of citizens, but are usually minor in direct impact (such as costs, deaths and wounded resulting directly from the incident) but can amount to major indirect impacts (such as feelings of unsafety, loss of commercial enterprise, depreciation of immovables, etcetera).
Social impacts
Known social impacts of antisocial behaviour include changing citzens 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 environmentla clues. This is known as the "broken glass phenomenon".
Economic impact
Antisocial behaviour leads to considerable costs in both a direct (primary) and a indirect (secondary) way[3]. 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, repairments, health costs, mental harm); and
- Responsive costs to antisocial behaviour (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, persecution, trial, etc.).
Moreover, antisocial behaviour can be a major detriment to the image of a neighbourhood, and as a result trigger secondary economic impact on, for example, property value, local businesses, tourism etc.
Measures
Potential measures that can mitigate the likelihood or impact of assault, are:
- Surveillance - orient buildings to face and overlook public spaces
- Reaction force
- designing out crime
- Active frontage - where possible, avoid blank walls onto public spaces, and maximise window and door openings (with 'overspill' activities, such as outdoor heated seating in front of a cafe/restaurant, etc).
- Directing flows of people - well-defined and illuminated navigation of the urban environment.
- Permeability - consider the correct balance of routes through the urban environment. Cul-de-sacs or 'dead-ends' should be minimised, while excessive permeability can stretch activity levels and footfall, thereby resulting in less vibrancy.
- Appropriate screening and boundaries - When landscaping the urban realm, consider the heights and thickness of screen planting and walls or fences.
- Enhancing the diversity and intensity of use (the scale of development and activity types, together with the mix of uses and dwelling types, will directly influence levels of antisocial behaviour. For example, a 'business district' that is virtually deserted in the evening can give rise to antisocial behaviour and loitering, whereas a vibrant mixed-use development with retail, commercial and residential uses is more likely to have levels of activity for longer periods (thus enhancing passive surveillance, etc).
Urban planning should facilitate vibrant, lived-in urban areas and public spaces which are easy to overlook and oversee, as a means of achieving community safety and crime prevention. From a planning perspective, a safe and secure urban realm and urban objects can be achieved through good design practices. By planning for a diversity and intensity of use in urban areas, antisocial behaviour can be mitigated
Footnotes and references
- ↑ Murphy, Deborah (2006) Anti-social behaviour: underlying causes and policy responses. Masters thesis, National University of Ireland, Galway.
- ↑ Andrew Millie Anti-Social Behaviour, Behavioural Expectations and an Urban Aesthetic Br J Criminol (2008) 48(3): 379-394 first published online February 22, 2008 doi:10.1093/bjc/azm076
- ↑ 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 neighborhood.
MAP
<websiteFrame> website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?concept=Security issue: Antisocial behaviour width=100% border=0 scroll=auto align=middle </websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
