Difference between revisions of "Security issue: Vandalism"
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
===Safety impact=== |
===Safety impact=== |
||
| + | Destruction of safety features (such as traffic signs, fencing around dangerous areas or in child-safe playgrounds) can lead to dangerous situations and safety hazards. It can negate the functions of objects, such as providing shelter or ensuring sanitary conditions. Also, the destruction itself can generate dangerous situations by for instance broken glass, loose nails or splinters wounding people. |
||
== Measures == |
== Measures == |
||
Revision as of 17:22, 18 March 2013
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. By this definition, this category includes defacement, such as graffiti. However, in order to keep this security issue limited and surveyable, this act is defined as a separate security issue. Also, wilful destruction performed by an 'organised'[1] group for a shared reason is dealt with in the security issue 'destruction by riots'. In the sense we use the term here, it will therefore only include physical damages, excluding defacement, motivated by other than rational reasons.
Contents
Description
The typical vandal is a young (adolescent) man, in a (small) group (but not organised) or alone. Youngsters prone to vandalism also 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[2]. 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[3].
Contributing circumstances
Known circumstances to influence the likelihood or effect of burglary, are presented in the table below:
| Contributing Circumstance | Influence | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 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[4]. |
| Crowds | Increases level of aggression. | Vandalism is a form of aggression, and this is (amongst others) influenced by crowding[2]. |
| Presence of adolescents. | Increases the number of potential offenders. | According to Tygert (1988) and Zweig and Ducey (1978), 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[2]. 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 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 reaction 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 impossoble 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. |
| High levels of unemployment | Increases likelihood of targeting | High levels of unemployment are associated with higher levels of vandalism[5]. |
| 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[6]. |
| 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[2]. Designing for easy maintenance and a (for the user) pleasing aesthetic appearance can therefore reduce the risk of vandalism. |
Impacts
Social impacts
Known social impacts of vandalism include changing citizens 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 environmental clues. This is known as the "broken glass phenomenon".
Economic impact
Vandalism leads to considerable costs in both a direct (primary) and a indirect (secondary) way[7]. Direct costs of vandalism come in the form of:
- Preventive costs in anticipation of vandalism (e.g. security measures, insurance)
- Material and immaterial costs as a consequence of vandalism (e.g. physical damage, clean up costs, repairs, medical costs, mental harm); and
- Responsive costs to vandalism (e.g. the costs of detection and prevention, prosecution, support trial, etc.).
The average costs of an act of vandalism are estimated at around € 700 for the Netherlands and € 900 for the UK (2005 prices)[8]. In addition, the presence of vandalism can trigger secondary economic impacts. 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[9]. 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"[10].
Mobility impact
Safety impact
Destruction of safety features (such as traffic signs, fencing around dangerous areas or in child-safe playgrounds) can lead to dangerous situations and safety hazards. It can negate the functions of objects, such as providing shelter or ensuring sanitary conditions. Also, the destruction itself can generate dangerous situations by for instance broken glass, loose nails or splinters wounding people.
Measures
- Change views of youngsters (In their view, public property in a real sense belongs to no one.In contrast, for youngsters less prone to vandalism, such property belongs to everyone; this view reflects their greater sense of themselves as part of a larger community ("Vandals," 1978))
- characterised by better aesthetic quality and maintenance of school property;[11]
- measures to minimise the visibility of dereliction may reduce the occurrence of vandalism;
- located in more densely populated areas with higher activity levels;
- furnished a less obstructed view of school property to surrounding residents; and
- were located in better-illuminated neighbourhood areas.
- prison - approach (such as target hardening, access controlling, offender deflecting, entry-exit screening, surveillance increasing, inducement removing) (! consequences !)[12]
- de-opportunising vandalism[13]
- Surveillance
- Intervention
Footnotes and references
- ↑ The term ‘organized’ is, in this sense, misleading. The amount and quality of this organization varies greatly between groups, from a highly disciplined, hierarchical criminal group that associates continuously throughout the week to a more casual grouping that comes on the occasion of a football match with the intention of committing violent acts.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Goldstein, Arnold P., Controlling Vandalism: The Person-Environment Duet, School oriented interventions, pp 290-321
- ↑ Dedel Johnson Kelly, School Vandalism and Break-Ins, Problem-Oriented Guides for Police, Guide No. 35, August 2005
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Kepple NJ, Freisthler B., Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries.,J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Jul;73(4):523-30
- ↑ Home Office, Safer Places. The planning system and crime prevention, 2004
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ SEO (2007). De kosten van criminaliteit.
- ↑ See Gibbons, S. (2004). The costs of urban property crime. The Economic Journal, 114 (499). ISSN 0013-0133.
- ↑ Pease, K & M. Gill (2011). Home security and place design: some evidence and its policy implications.
- ↑ (School-related vandalism) Reprinted with permission of The Guilford Press CHAPTER 14 Controlling Vandalism: The Person-Environment Duet ARNOLD P. GOLDSTEIN
- ↑ Furthermore, the very scope of their implementation—in their most extreme form, the "Bastille response" (Ward, 1973) or the "crime-proof fortress" (Zweig &c Ducey, 1978)—has in some settings had a very negative impact on the very mission for which the setting was created in the first place. For example, "More and more high schools are becoming mechanical systems ruled by constraints on timing, location, and behaviour. The similarity between schools and jails is becoming ever more pronounced" (Csikszentmihalyi & Larsen, 1978, p. 25).
- ↑ Weinmayer's (1969) assertion that "ninety percent of what is labeled vandalism can be prevented through design" (p. 286) Wiesenthal (1990), for example, observes that "property damage can be avoided by design elements that do more than resist attack; design can be used to subtly steer the user away from destruction or defacement" (p. 289). Wise (1982) suggests that design may be employed to channel attention away from potentially damaging activities, to reduce the effects of natural processes (e.g., erosion, weathering) that vandals may augment, and to eliminate or reduce the type of environmental feedback that may serve to reinforce vandalist behaviour. Wilson (1977), writing as an architect, summarizes the case for design-as-intervention succinctly: The shape of buildings can dictate patterns of use and the circulation of people around them and hence help to structure the networks of social relationships that develop. In addition, buildings, by the amount of surveillance they afford, may prevent or offer opportunities for certain activities to take place unobserved. Finally, attrition and damage to buildings can be prevented to an extent by careful use of materials and finishes. It is eminently sensible to suppose that there is some connection between design and behaviour, including vandalism, (p. 795) Blauvelt (1980) urges making the school "occupied."He claims: The key to controlling vandalism is to make the school a place that in some sense is continuously occupied by some form of human or mechanical residence, which will deter or respond to the vandal. The heart of any effective approach to controlling vandalism will be establishing that sense of "presence" which defines the building as no longer being an inert target, (p. 4) Added bus conductors, real and dummy TV cameras in stores, Neighbourhood Watch programs, improved neighbourhood lighting, and increased number of store employees are all examples of opportunity-reducing, surveillance increasing social-ecological interventions.
