This paper explores spatial properties of urban environments in relation to the occurrence of antisocial
behaviour (ASB). This is a new approach depart from previous research which considers ASB
predominantly from the socio-economic perspective. ASB, in contrast to crime, is a phenomenon
which lacks clear formal definition - its borders to 'normal' or acceptable behaviour on the one end
of the spectrum and criminal behaviour on its other end are blurred. What is perceived as 'antisocial'
by the individual is typically highly subjective and depends on the observer's personal
background (age, cultural background, gender etc). Sensitivity to disorder is also dependent on the
backdrop of the urban scene - certain behaviour appears acceptable in certain environments
whereas in others it is not. Any data set of reported ASB incidents is therefore inherently affected not
only by lack of definition / definability of ASB and the reporting and recording practices, but also
biased by the type of urban environment in which it takes place. Our findings suggests that,
controlling for social differences, that patterns of ASB incidents can be correlated to physical
properties of the environment, if we consider the environment in terms of its syntactical properties.
We find generic patterns of incidents in different types of spatial layouts. We suggest that these
patterns can be explained in the light of co-presence for pedestrians on the street and surveillance
from residential entrances on the streets, with ASB withdrawing from both. This links our work to
findings in the research on crime, and also to findings in the field of the social sciences: our
findings might contribute to an understanding how communities organise in space and become
'socially effective' against disorder and crime.
[1]
Bill Hillier,et al.
An evidence based approach to crime and urban design
,
2009
.
[2]
D. Farrington.
Childhood origins of antisocial behavior
,
2005
.
[3]
Bill Hillier,et al.
Network effects and psychological effects: a theory of urban movement
,
2005
.
[4]
Bill Hillier,et al.
Can streets be made safe?
,
2004
.
[5]
James J. Nolan III,et al.
Situational policing: neighbourhood development and crime control
,
2004
.
[6]
S. Raudenbush,et al.
Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy.
,
1997,
Science.
[7]
Bill Hillier,et al.
Space is the machine
,
1996
.
[8]
P. Brantingham,et al.
Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment
,
1993
.
[9]
B. Hillier,et al.
The Social Logic of Space
,
1984
.
[10]
J. Wilson,et al.
BROKEN WINDOWS: THE POLICE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFETY
,
1982
.
[11]
J. B. Harvey.
The Fall of Public Man
,
1977
.
[12]
O. Newman,et al.
Defensible Space; Crime Prevention Through Urban Design.
,
1973
.
[13]
J. Jacobs.
The Death and Life of Great American Cities
,
1962
.