Measure type: Ownership

Ownership is the measure of reducing risk by establishing an environment where there is a clear separation between public and private space.

Description

Research has shown that a lack of ownership can act as a disinhibitor for certain crimes, as "Uncertainty of ownership can reduce responsibility and increase the likelihood of crime and anti-social behaviour going unchallenged". Ownership is described as "Places that promote a sense of ownership, respect, territorial responsibility and community".

The level of ownership is expressed in a clear distinction between public, semi-private/communal and private space:

1. Will it be clear to users — including potential offenders and capable guardians — which space is public, communal, semi-private and private?
2. Are the boundaries between public, communal and private space signified in the most appropriate manner, be it a physical barrier or a psychological barrier such as changes in paving, surface texture/colour, landscaping and signage?
3. Will the place have an identity of its own?
4. Are all those who should feel ownership involved in defining the place’s identity?
5. Are barriers of a high quality of design in their detailing and appropriate to their local context?

Examples

Wood fence, indicating a clear distinction between public and private space. The open structure does not restrict surveillance,

• Providing a clear demarcation between public and private territory by fences, paving, surface texture/colour, landscaping, planting and/or signage.
• Increasing the felt level of responsibility for the environment by involving residents and users. This can be achieved in a number of ways, such as town centre management partnerships, tenant management organisations, community development trusts, regeneration programmes and management trusts.
• Involving the community in the design of (parts of) communal spaces.
• Increasing a sense of communality by using distinct and common design features, like colours or architecture.
• Hiring of unemployed youths as subway vandalism inspectors.
• "Adopt-a-station" antivandalism programs.

Effectiveness

Security issues where this measure can be effective and influenced by the urban planner, are:

Financial gain	Boredom or compulsive behaviour	Impulse	Conflict in beliefs
Burglary{{#info:Burglary is the crime of illicitly entering a building with the intent to commit an offence, particularly (but not limited to) theft.}}	Physical assault{{#info:Assault, is a crime which involves causing a victim to fear or to experience any type of violence, except for sexual violence}}	Destruction by riots{{#info:Destruction by riots is the act of vandalism of property by organised groups for a shared rational or rationalised reason.}}	Mass killing{{#info:Mass killing is the crime of purposely causing harm or death to a group of (unknown) people in order to make a statement or to influence the public opinion. This threat is exerted out of wilful action by fanatics: terrorists or criminal activists.}}
Ram-raiding{{#info:Ram raid is a particular technique for burglars to gain access to primarily commercial premises, by means of driving -usually stolen- vehicles into locked or closed entrances, exits or windows.}}	Sexual assault{{#info:Sexual assault is assault of a sexual nature on another person, or any sexual act committed without consent}}		Destruction of property by fanatics{{#info:Destruction by fanatics is the crime of purposely causing damage in order to make a statement or to influence the public opinion.}}
Pickpocketing{{#info:Pickpocketing is a form of theft that involves the stealing of valuables from a victim without their noticing the theft at the time. }}	Vandalism{{#info:Vandalism is the act of wilful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of property without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control.}}
Robbery{{#info:Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. It is used her exclusively for acts committed to individual persons.}}	Graffiti{{#info:Grafitti is the defacement of property by means of writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed on a surface in a public place without the consent of the owner or person having custody or control. }}
Raid{{#info:Raid is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value from a commercial venue by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear.}}	Antisocial Behaviour{{#info:Antisocial behaviour is an accumulation category of relatively small crimes that highly influence the security perception of citizens. }}
Vehicle theft{{#info:Vehicle theft is the crime of theft, or attempt of theft of or from a motor vehicle (automobile, truck, bus, motorcycle, etc.).}}

Considerations

General considerations

The form of measures that are most suited to provide ownership depend on the location and use of the object. High fences and landscape that actively impede access are most appropriate in places that are vulnerable to crime, such as the back of dwellings. Lower barriers, hedges and bushes are also highly useful to signify the public/private divide.

Safety/security considerations

Wherever an increased sense of ownership leads to an increase in social cohesion, this may lead to an increased social concern to one another. This concern can lead to a decrease in security issues (by for example the public not accepting aggression to an fellow resident), or in safety issues (like people providing first aid to an injured fellow resident after an accident).

Economic considerations

Privatising public space for security purposes does not necessarily imply that the involved actors also actually 'own' the specific urban object/environment in legal and financial terms. Increasing the involvement of residents and users with the help of regeneration programmes or "adoption"-programmes, for example, does not make these people the legal owner of the specific urban objects, but does increase the involvement of the members of a community.

The costs of 'ownership' measures contain the relatively straightforward direct expenditures on capital equipment and operational costs (both temporary and permanent), and in addition generate various types of secondary effects. Whether the costs are making sense from an economic point of view, depends on many factors, and can be answered by two distinct sets of questions:

1. Are the envisioned 'ownership' measures cost effective from a socio-economic point of view, or are there better alternatives?
2. Which specific agents (individuals, companies, sectors, authorities) are affected by the surveillance measures, and to which extend? How do the envisioned measures adjust the behaviour of these agents, and of course the behaviour of criminals/terrorists?

Case example: Cost-effective security programmes for schools

The Department of Education and Training in Western Australia initiated in 1999 a successful security risk management programme helping school principals to evaluate existing security measures and determine cost-effective levels of security to meet the risks faced by their schools . Part of this assessment was the draft of a treatment plan for which the principal provided a description of the school plan, including costs of individual security measures and the applied locations. The programme was very successful in reducing the number of offences (13 - 40%) and cost of crime (30 - 70%)<ref>This excepts the result of one particular school which dealt with an isolated crime occurrence of stolen computers during the programme evaluation. One of the core applied security measures was ownership/territorial reinforcement in which not only staff and students are involved, but also the community through the School Watch Programme.

Economic tools can help the decision makers to answer these questions and to prevent wasteful expenditures on security (of course in collaboration with insights from criminology, sociology, etc.).