Difference between revisions of "Measure type: Access control"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
== Effectiveness == |
== Effectiveness == |
||
| + | ===Economic effectiveness=== |
||
| + | Screening does not only reduce the risk of security threats, but also generates [[Economic effects of security measures|economic impact as a security measure]] that mitigates the impact of crime but also alters the [[The economics of crime#Behaviour of criminals|behaviour of the offender(s)]]. Primarily, the economic impact of security measures is the costs of the security measures. Besides that, there are also costs and benefits regarding the secondary impact of security measures, such as [[Economic effects of anti-crime security measures#Crime displacement|displacement effects]]. |
||
| + | [[File:OxfordCCTV2006.jpg|thumb|OxfordCCTV2006]] |
||
| + | The current debate about CCTV (camera surveillance) with regards to its cost-effectiveness is pointing out the following topics: |
||
| + | * Empirical research finds that the overall crime rates drop in the areas with CCTV, but not in all cases and situations<ref> See, ''e.g.'':Priks, M. (2010).''The Effect of Surveillance Cameras on Crime: Evidence from the Stockholm Subway''. Cameron, A., E. Kolodinski, H. May, N. Williams (2008). ''Measuring the Effects of Video Surveillance on Crime in Los Angeles''. CRB-8-007. USC School of Policy, Planning and Development.</ref>. Furthermore, crimes committed in the heat of the moment, such as assaults are in general not affected by the presence of cameras. |
||
| + | * Total costs of CCTV far exceed that of the camera hardware alone<ref> See ''e.g.'':http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/08/08-007.pdf and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/22/cctv-surveillance-police-cost</ref>. |
||
| + | * To be effective, surveillance systems should be fully integrated into law enforcement practices. |
||
== Side effects == |
== Side effects == |
||
Revision as of 01:51, 31 January 2013
Access control is the reduction of risk by regulating and controlling the flows of traffic into and out of an area of object
Contents
Description
This approach involves architectural features, mechanical and electronic devices, and related means for maintaining prerogatives over the ability to gain entry:
- Key control systems
- Locked gates, doors, windows
- Electromagnetic doors unopenable from outside
- Deadbolt and vertical-bolt locks
- Metal door/window shutters
- Protective grills over roof access openings
- Fenced yards
- Vertical metal or small-mesh (unclimbable) fencing
- Reduced number of building entrances
- Unclimbable trees/bushes planted next to building
- Prickly bushes planted next to site to be protected
- Sloped windowsills
- Elimination of crank and gear window mechanisms
- Steeply angled roofs with parapets and ridges
- Use of guard dogs
- Use of student photo identification
- Partitioning off of selected areas during "downtime" hours
- High curbs along areas to be protected
Essential conditions
Requirements to the urban environment
Effectiveness
Economic effectiveness
Screening does not only reduce the risk of security threats, but also generates economic impact as a security measure that mitigates the impact of crime but also alters the behaviour of the offender(s). Primarily, the economic impact of security measures is the costs of the security measures. Besides that, there are also costs and benefits regarding the secondary impact of security measures, such as displacement effects.
The current debate about CCTV (camera surveillance) with regards to its cost-effectiveness is pointing out the following topics:
- Empirical research finds that the overall crime rates drop in the areas with CCTV, but not in all cases and situations[1]. Furthermore, crimes committed in the heat of the moment, such as assaults are in general not affected by the presence of cameras.
- Total costs of CCTV far exceed that of the camera hardware alone[2].
- To be effective, surveillance systems should be fully integrated into law enforcement practices.
Side effects
Footnotes and references
- ↑ See, e.g.:Priks, M. (2010).The Effect of Surveillance Cameras on Crime: Evidence from the Stockholm Subway. Cameron, A., E. Kolodinski, H. May, N. Williams (2008). Measuring the Effects of Video Surveillance on Crime in Los Angeles. CRB-8-007. USC School of Policy, Planning and Development.
- ↑ See e.g.:http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/08/08-007.pdf and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/22/cctv-surveillance-police-cost
