<%BANNER%>

Reconciling Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Walkability Factors for Safe, Active Trips to School

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025038/00001

Material Information

Title: Reconciling Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Walkability Factors for Safe, Active Trips to School The Role of School Site Size, Placement and Design
Physical Description: 1 online resource (115 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Fischman, Allison
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cpted, walkability
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Obesity is a growing threat to child health, and active transportation through walking and biking to school is one way to reduce its prevalence. As school districts and local governments begin to coordinate planning for the location of new schools, the ability of children to walk and bike to school is receiving greater attention. With increased media focus on school shootings and terrorist attacks, child safety at and around schools is also receiving greater attention than ever before. More and more school districts and local governments are employing the theory of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in development regulations and school facilities plans. This research analyzes the largely unexplored effects of the implementation of CPTED mechanisms on public health, specifically its effects on walkability and the potential for children s active transport to school. In this study, a methodology set forth by Steiner et al. (2008) is used to determine the potential for children to walk and bicycle to school in a sample of sixteen elementary schools in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Results from the walkability analysis are then compared to the results of a CPTED survey to identify and explore any relationship(s) between walkability and the presence of CPTED-related elements. The study has three research components: (1) analysis of the potential for children to walk to school based on a variety of measures for a sample of elementary schools; (2) analysis of the presence and location of CPTED-related elements at and around the sample school sites; and (3) comparison of the potential for walkability to the presence of CPTED-related elements and identifying any relationship(s) or interaction. There is considerable variation, but results generally do not support a clear answer to the question of how CPTED and walkability interact at school sites and in surrounding neighborhoods, this study presents an initial methodology for exploring the issue. A more refined methodology may help researchers and practitioners better understand facilitators and impediments to active transportation among children. With this information, planners will be more knowledgeable about the effects of CPTED on walkability and will be able to make informed recommendations to improve CPTED-influenced policies. Also, school facilities planners and officials will be better informed about these effects and can use the information to help maximize the potential for safe, active trips to school. This research is important in the critical analysis of the effects of CPTED implementation in general. Growing media focus on crime and terrorism fuels public pressure to address safety and security, and as a result CPTED policies and practices are becoming more widespread. While the effects of CPTED implementation on crime rates have been widely documented, the effects of CPTED implementation on community livability are largely unexplored. This study analyzes the effects of CPTED on walkability, which could provide a foundation for the analysis of the effects of CPTED on other community livability elements such as social interaction, environmental aesthetics and conditions, recreational and entertainment activities, and cultural resources.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Allison Fischman.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Schneider, Richard H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025038:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025038/00001

Material Information

Title: Reconciling Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Walkability Factors for Safe, Active Trips to School The Role of School Site Size, Placement and Design
Physical Description: 1 online resource (115 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Fischman, Allison
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cpted, walkability
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Obesity is a growing threat to child health, and active transportation through walking and biking to school is one way to reduce its prevalence. As school districts and local governments begin to coordinate planning for the location of new schools, the ability of children to walk and bike to school is receiving greater attention. With increased media focus on school shootings and terrorist attacks, child safety at and around schools is also receiving greater attention than ever before. More and more school districts and local governments are employing the theory of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in development regulations and school facilities plans. This research analyzes the largely unexplored effects of the implementation of CPTED mechanisms on public health, specifically its effects on walkability and the potential for children s active transport to school. In this study, a methodology set forth by Steiner et al. (2008) is used to determine the potential for children to walk and bicycle to school in a sample of sixteen elementary schools in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Results from the walkability analysis are then compared to the results of a CPTED survey to identify and explore any relationship(s) between walkability and the presence of CPTED-related elements. The study has three research components: (1) analysis of the potential for children to walk to school based on a variety of measures for a sample of elementary schools; (2) analysis of the presence and location of CPTED-related elements at and around the sample school sites; and (3) comparison of the potential for walkability to the presence of CPTED-related elements and identifying any relationship(s) or interaction. There is considerable variation, but results generally do not support a clear answer to the question of how CPTED and walkability interact at school sites and in surrounding neighborhoods, this study presents an initial methodology for exploring the issue. A more refined methodology may help researchers and practitioners better understand facilitators and impediments to active transportation among children. With this information, planners will be more knowledgeable about the effects of CPTED on walkability and will be able to make informed recommendations to improve CPTED-influenced policies. Also, school facilities planners and officials will be better informed about these effects and can use the information to help maximize the potential for safe, active trips to school. This research is important in the critical analysis of the effects of CPTED implementation in general. Growing media focus on crime and terrorism fuels public pressure to address safety and security, and as a result CPTED policies and practices are becoming more widespread. While the effects of CPTED implementation on crime rates have been widely documented, the effects of CPTED implementation on community livability are largely unexplored. This study analyzes the effects of CPTED on walkability, which could provide a foundation for the analysis of the effects of CPTED on other community livability elements such as social interaction, environmental aesthetics and conditions, recreational and entertainment activities, and cultural resources.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Allison Fischman.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Schneider, Richard H.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025038:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 RECONCILING CRIME PREVENTION THR OUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN (CPTED) AND WALKABILITY FACTORS FOR SAFE, ACTI VE TRIPS TO SCHOOL: THE ROLE OF SCHOOL SITE SIZE, PLACEMENT AND DESIGN By ALLISON FISCHMAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Allison Fischman

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y chair Dr. Ruth Stei ner and committee member Dr. Ilir Bejleri for their constant support and guidance throughout my time as a graduate student. I am grateful to have worked as a research assistant under Drs. Steiner and Bejleri, an experience which greatly enhanced my graduate student education and offered countless opportuniti es to better understand the field of urban and regional pl anning. I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Schneider for introducing me to the theory of Crime Pr evention Through Environmental Design not only through his lectures, but also through his eye-opening field trips. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their love and support.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 3LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................6LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 122 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................14A Brief Overview of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) .............. 14CPTED and New Urbanism .................................................................................................... 16Evidence and Arguments Against Permeability ..................................................................... 18Arguments for Compatibility .................................................................................................. 203 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 22Study Area ..............................................................................................................................23Walkability Analysis .......................................................................................................... ....24CPTED Analysis ................................................................................................................ .....25Comparison of Analyses ........................................................................................................ .264 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........32Bayview Elementary School ................................................................................................... 33Bennett Elementary School .................................................................................................... 33Croissant Park Elementary School ......................................................................................... 34Dillard Elementary School .....................................................................................................34Floranada Elementary School ................................................................................................. 35Stephen Foster Elementary School .........................................................................................35Harbordale Elementary School ............................................................................................... 35Lauderdale Manors Elementary School .................................................................................. 36Thurgood Marshall Elementary School .................................................................................. 36North Fork Elementary School ...............................................................................................37North Side Elementary School ............................................................................................... 37Riverland Elementary School ................................................................................................. 38Rock Island Elementary School .............................................................................................. 39Sunland Park Elementary School ........................................................................................... 39Walker Elementary School ..................................................................................................... 40Westwood Heights Elementary School .................................................................................. 40

PAGE 5

5 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... .51Discussion of Results ......................................................................................................... .....51Limitations and Opportunities for Further Research .............................................................. 52Conclusions .............................................................................................................................53 APPENDIX A DEFINING AND EXAMINING THE PEDESTRIAN SHED .............................................. 55B WALKABILITY INDICATORS AND CRIME RISK .......................................................... 88C SELECTED WALKABILITY INDICATO R VALUES FOR ALL PEDESTRIAN SHEDS ......................................................................................................................... ...........94LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................111BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................115

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Overview of selected schools .............................................................................................293-2 Measures of walkability .....................................................................................................303-3 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Survey Tool. ..................... 314-1 Profile of selected intervening variab les (crime, race, population age, property value)..................................................................................................................................474-2 Walkability indicator values for half mile network pedestrian shed adjusted to school attendance zone boundaries. ..............................................................................................484-3 CPTED survey results ...................................................................................................... ..494-4 Z values associated with Table 4-2. ...................................................................................50C-1 Bayview Elementary School walkability indica tor values ................................................95C-2 Bennett Elementary School walkability indicator values .................................................. 96C-3 Croissant Park Elementary School walkability indicator values .......................................97C-4 Dillard Elementary School walkability indicator values ................................................... 98C-5 Floranada Elementary School walkability indicator values ............................................... 99C-6 Stephen Foster Elementary School walkability indicator values .....................................100C-7 Harbordale Elementary School walkability indicator values ...........................................101C-8 Lauderdale Manors Elementary School walkability indicator values ............................. 102C-9 Thurgood Marshall Elementary Scho ol walkability indicator values ..............................103C-10 North Fork Elementary School walkability indicator values ...........................................104C-11 North Side Elementary School walkability indicator values ...........................................105C-12 Riverland Elementary School walkability indi cator values .............................................106C-13 Rock Island Elementary School walkability indicator values .........................................107C-14 Sunland Park Elementary School walkability indicator values ....................................... 108

PAGE 7

7 C-15 Walker Elementary School walkability indicator values ................................................. 109C-16 Westwood Heights Elementary School walkability indicator values .............................. 110

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Map of study area, including sel ected schools and attendance zones ................................284-1 Crime incidence aggregated by homeown er association (HOA) jurisdiction, 1/2008 4/2009, and minority population. ....................................................................................... 414-2 Crime incidence aggregated by homeown er association (HOA) jurisdiction, 1/2008 4/2009, and youth population. ........................................................................................... 424-3 Average assessed residen tial parcel value (2008) aggr egated by school attendance zone. ......................................................................................................................... ..........434-4 Photographs of Sunland Park Elementary School and vicinity. ........................................444-5 Photographs of Rock Island Elementary School and vicinity. .......................................... 454-6 Photographs of Walker Elem entary School and vicinity. ..................................................46A-1 Bayview Elementary School. ............................................................................................. 56A-2 Bennett Elementary School................................................................................................ 58A-3 Croissant Park Elementary School..................................................................................... 60A-4 Dillard Elementary School. ................................................................................................62A-5 Floranada Elementary School.. .......................................................................................... 64A-6 Stephen Foster Elementary School. ...................................................................................66A-7 Harbordale Elementary School.. ........................................................................................ 68A-8 Lauderdale Manors Elementary School.. ...........................................................................70A-9 Thurgood Marshall Elementary School.. ........................................................................... 72A-10 North Fork Elementary School.. ........................................................................................74A-11 North Side Elementary School........................................................................................... 76A-12 Riverland Elementary School. ........................................................................................... 78A-13 Rock Island Elementary School.. ....................................................................................... 80A-14 Sunland Park Elementary School....................................................................................... 82

PAGE 9

9 A-15 Walker Elementary School ................................................................................................84A-16 Westwood Heights Elementary School. ............................................................................86B-1 Residential Parcel Density and Crime Risk .......................................................................89B-2 Gross Dwelling Unit Density and Crime Risk ................................................................... 89B-3 Net Dwelling Unit Density and Crime Risk ...................................................................... 90B-4 Intersection Density and Crime Risk ................................................................................. 90B-5 Road Density and Crime Risk............................................................................................91B-6 Connected Node Ratio and Crime Risk ............................................................................. 91B-7 Link Node Ratio and Crime Risk....................................................................................... 92B-8 Street Connectivity Index and Crime Risk ........................................................................ 92B-9 Pedestrian Route Di rectness and Crime Risk .................................................................... 93B-10 Pedestrian Shed Coverage and Crime Risk ....................................................................... 93

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning RECONCILING CRIME PREVENTION THR OUGH ENVIRONME NTAL DESIGN (CPTED) AND WALKABILITY FACTORS FOR SAFE, ACTI VE TRIPS TO SCHOOL: THE ROLE OF SCHOOL SITE SIZE, PLACEMENT AND DESIGN By Allison Fischman August 2009 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Richard Schneider Major: Urban and Regional Planning Obesity is a growing threat to child healt h, and active transporta tion through walking and biking to school is one way to re duce its prevalence. As school districts and local governments begin to coordinate planning for the location of new schools, the ab ility of children to walk and bike to school is receiving gr eater attention. With increased media focus on school shootings and terrorist attacks, child safety at and around schools is also receiving greater attention than ever before. More and more sc hool districts and local governmen ts are employing the theory of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in development regulations and school facilities plans. This research analyzes the larg ely unexplored effects of the implementation of CPTED mechanisms on public health, specifically its effects on walkability and the potential for childrens active transport to school. In this study, a methodology set forth by Steine r et al. (2008) is used to determine the potential for children to walk and bicycle to school in a sample of sixteen elementary schools in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Results from the walkability analysis are then compared to the results of a CPTED survey to identify and explore any rela tionship(s) between walkability and the presence of CPTED-related elements. The study ha s three research compone nts: (1) analysis of

PAGE 11

11 the potential for children to walk to school base d on a variety of measures for a sample of elementary schools; (2) analysis of the presence and location of CPTED-re lated elements at and around the sample school sites; and (3) compar ison of the potential fo r walkability to the presence of CPTED-related elements and identifying any relationship( s) or interaction. There is considerable variation, but results generally do not support a clear answer to the question of how CPTED and walkability in teract at school si tes and in surrounding neighborhoods, this study presents an initial methodology for exploring the issue. A more refined methodology may help researchers and pr actitioners better understand facilitators and impediments to active transporta tion among children. With this information, planners will be more knowledgeable about the effects of CPTE D on walkability and will be able to make informed recommendations to improve CPTED-inf luenced policies. Also, school facilities planners and officials wi ll be better informed about these e ffects and can use the information to help maximize the potential fo r safe, active trips to school. This research is important in the critical analysis of the effects of CPTED implementation in general. Growing media focus on crime and te rrorism fuels public pressure to address safety and security, and as a result CPTED policies a nd practices are becomi ng more widespread. While the effects of CPTED implementation on cr ime rates have been widely documented, the effects of CPTED implementation on community livability are largely unexplored. This study analyzes the effects of CPTED on walkability, wh ich could provide a foundation for the analysis of the effects of CPTED on othe r community livability elements such as social interaction, environmental aesthetics and condi tions, recreational and entertai nment activities, and cultural resources.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Todays parents are m ore involved than ever befo re in their childrens lives, and safety is a major concern. Over the past decade, the American public has become increasingly aware of school shootings and child abductions. These events combined with terrorist attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombings and 9/11 have led to p ublic pressure for safer public facilities, including schools. Local governments and schoo l districts are employing crime prevention and safety techniques in their design guidelines and development regulations with increasing frequency. Many local governments and school boa rds are working with police departments to implement Crime Prevention Through Enviro nmental Design (CPTED) techniques, design mechanisms dictating elements of urban form that can be manipulated in order to deter crime. Just as public concern for child safety has in creased in recent year s, so has concern for overall child health. Over the past three decad es, overweight and obesity rates in children and adolescents have soared. Childre n are exercising less and less, a nd fewer children are walking to school. This decrease in the number of children wa lking to school can be attributed to a variety of factors, including school loca tion and the distance between home and school, as well as fear of crime. As local governments and school boards work to plan for changing student populations, the ability of children to walk to school has become an important consideration. One of the major criticisms of CPTED is that it inhibits freedom of movement. Since the advent of New Urbanism in the 1980s, a design philosophy that promotes walkability, there have been questions as to how the two theories interact. In many cases a safer environment facilitates walkability. Parents are more likel y to allow or encourage their child to walk to school if they are confident he or she will be safe. In other cases, a safer environment may decrease its potential for walkability, such as in the case of a fence bordering a ne ighborhood adjacent to a

PAGE 13

13 school. While the fence may deter intruders, it also greatly increases the length of a childs trip to school should he live in that neighborhood, discouraging him from walking. This research is to address the interaction betw een CPTED implementation and walkability at schools and within the neighborhoods around schools. Following this introduction, the document is orga nized to include chapters explaining the research methodology, results, and conclusions. Chapter 3 sets forth the methodology, Chapter 4 presents findings, and Chapter 5 offers discussion s on the results, limitations and challenges, and the overall significance of the study.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides a review of the liter ature pertaining to C rime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) an d New Urbanism. The focus is primarily on the debate over permeability and street network connectivity that exists among scholars and practitioners of the two design theories. The review begins with an overview of CPTED including its origins, concepts and strategies. This is followed by an introduction to the debate over New Urbanism with respect to crime and safety. Then, eviden ce and arguments for and against permeability are presented followed by a discussion of whether and how CPTED and New Urbanism might be considered compatible. A Brief Overview of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Crim e Prevention Through Environmental Design, along with defensible space, situational crime prevention and environmental criminology, is one of the core theories of place-based crime prevention (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). Th is section provides an introduction to its origins, concepts and strategies. A decade after Jacobs published her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), in which she emphasized the importa nce of eyes on the street or natural surveillance in prev enting crime, Jeffery published the book Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (1971). His work examined the eff ects of the built environment on crime, and along with Newmans work in defensible space (Newman, 1972) it was among the first to suggest a departure from conventional crimi nology theory and crime prevention techniques (Atlas, 2008). Newmans defensible space theory arose from his experiences with public housing design. He found that the design and la rge scale of many public housing developments discouraged territorial behavior among residents such as rec ognizing strangers or displaying

PAGE 15

15 signs of ownership over public sp aces and provided offenders with multitudinous access points for easy entrance and escape (Clarke, 1997). Jefferys CPTED theory proposed a broader approach to crime prevention in which both genetics and the physical environment are taken into consideration in preven ting criminal behavior (Clarke, 1997) Drawing on the philosophies of Bentham and Skinner, Jeffery argued the physical environment could be manipulated to reward or punish behavior (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007) While modern CPTED theory draws on the works of both Newman and Jeffery, it represents a significant departure from Jefferys original CPTED theory, relying less on the importance of brain processes in changing behavior and more on the principles of defensible space (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). The National Crime Prevention Institute define s CPTED as the assumption that the proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the fear of crime and the incidence of crime, and to an improveme nt in the quality of life (Crowe, 2000, p. 42). Scholars generally identify natural access co ntrol, natural surveillance and territorial reinforcement as the core stra tegies of CPTED (Crowe, 2000; Sc hneider & Kitchen, 2007; Atlas, 2008). Other strategies include activity support, image/mainte nance, and target hardening (Cozens, Saville & Hillier, 2005). Overlap often occurs among strategies (Crowe, 2000). Crowe (1991) classifies CPTED m easures as natural, mechanical, or organizational/human. Mechanical and organizational/human measures which take advantage of target hardening technology such as locks or cameras and human security such as police officer patrols or neighborhood watches, respectively are secondary to natural m easures (Crowe, 1991). Natural crime prevention techniques emphasize the use of urban design to take advantage of natural, environmental opportunities for crime preven tion (Crowe, 2000). Natural access control minimizes crime opportunity by clearly defining a propertys entrance and exit points and

PAGE 16

16 circulation patterns (Atlas, 2008). Natural survei llance stems from the notion that offenders may be less likely to offend if they perceive they can be observed (Cozens, Saville & Hillier, 2005). Natural surveillance tech niques include facing windows to overl ook a property or the street and ensuring unobstructed sightlines to increase visibility (Atlas, 2008). Access control and surveillance can promote a sense of territoriality, defined as a sense of te rritorial influence or feeling of ownership among the users of a property (Crowe, 2000). Some territorial reinforcement techniques include signage, boundary definition using shrubbery or CPTEDcompliant fencing (fencing that does not inhibit si ghtlines), and the subdivision of space within a property to delineate semi-public and semi-p rivate spaces (Atlas, 2008). Other CPTED strategies generally employed by CPTED practitioners include management and maintenance and activity support. Management and maintena nce builds on the broke n windows theory of Wilson and Kellig (1982), in which elements of di sorder, such as vandalism, are thought to lead to increased disorder and decr eased social cohesion. Activity support refers to the proper placement of land and property uses to promote le gitimate activities. This strategy draws on the Three-D approach to environmental design: designation, definition and design (Crowe, 1991, 2000). To maximize the legitimate use of space a property should have a designated purpose, defined boundaries and clear owne rship, and a physical design to support the intended function (Crowe, 1991, 2000). CPTED and New Urbanism The planning and design philosophy New Ur banism originates from the notion that conventional suburban development has resulted in numerous societal ills, including but not limited to increased traffic congestion, less open space, increased dependency on the automobile, and a decreased sense of community among neig hbors (Fulton, 1996). New Urbanism attempts to foster a greater sense of community thr ough design principles that promote pedestrian-

PAGE 17

17 oriented, transit-oriented and mixed use developments (Fulton, 1996). The Charter of the New Urbanism (CNU, 2000), a document regarded as the phi losophys official treatise (Talen, 2002), expounds design principles under three major categories: the region, the neighborhood, and the block. At their core, the design prescriptions therein call for minimizi ng conventional suburbia through development which promotes the following: metropolitan regions that are composed of well-structured cities, towns, and neighbourhoods with identifiable centres and edges; compact development that preserves farmland and environmentally sensitive areas; infill development to revitalize city centres; interconnected streets, friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, often in modified grid or weblike patterns; mixed land uses rather than si ngle-use pods; discreet placement of garages and parking spaces to avoid auto-dominated landscapes; transit-oriented development (TOD); well-designed and sited civic buildings and public gathering places; the use of building and street and building typologies to create coherent urban form; high-quality parks and conservation lands used to define and connect neighbourhoods and districts; and architectural design that shows respect for lo cal history and regiona l character (Katz, 1994; CNU, 2000; as cited in Ellis, 2002, p. 262). As New Urbanism has increased in popularity over the past two decades (Fulton, 1996; Talen, 1999), it has been both celebrated and critici zed on numerous fronts. The scope of this review is limited to the work of those scholars and critics who have alleged that New Urbanism is fundamentally flawed inasmuch it lacks the capacity to prevent crime and may result in developments more susceptible to crime, as well as the work of those w ho reject such arguments. The debate centers on two aspects of th e New Urbanism philosophy: permeability and mixed land uses (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). New Urbanism calls for a diversity of land uses spread along a grid-patterned, connected street network, whereas CPTED emphasizes access control through culs-de-sac and le ss well-connected street networks and alleges that locating businesses in residential neighborhoods may in crease crime risk (Atlas, 2008; Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). Other key differences between New Urbanism and CP TED include views on activity generation, density and car parking (Kitchen, 2005).

PAGE 18

18 Because street network connectivity is the primary indicato r of walkability utilized in the methodology presented in Chapter 3, the debate ov er permeability oft-co nsidered to be the chief focus of the controversy (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007; Kitchen, 2005; Armitage, 2007) is explored in detail here. In his comparison of New Urbanism and Secured by Design (SBD) the police-based program designed to implement CPTED in the UK Kitchen (2005) summarizes the differing views on permeability as follows. Permeability from a New Urbanist perspective assigns fundamental importance to the principl e of interconnected streets and pathways, while SBD cautions that access and egre ss opportunities should be carefu lly controlled and limited in number (Kitchen, 2005, p. 351). New Urbanists r eason that movement allows for increased natural surveillance and informal stewards hip among residents while proponents of CPTED argue that limiting access results in barriers to cr ime (Rudlin & Falk, 1995, as citied in Kitchen, 2005). The following paragraphs discuss the evidence associated with crime risk and permeability as well as arguments associated with the compatibility of both design theories. Evidence and Arguments Against Permeability Schneider & Kitchen (2007) summ arized the re sults of various empirical studies of the relationship between burglary and street type. In examining th e findings of Bevis and Nutter (1977), Nasar (1981), Greenberg, Rohe, and Williams (1982), Greenberg and Rohe (1984), and Rengert and Hakim (1998), the auth ors observed a consistent pattern of accessibility associated with increased crime risk (Schneider & K itchen, 2007). Cozens (2008b) similarly concluded from a review of relevant studies that permeable street layouts exhibit in creased levels of crime and vulnerability to crime. More specificall y, permeable, gridiron street patterns and throughtraffic streets demonstrate str ong correlation with the incide nce of burglary, where no such correlation exists for other street patterns such as culs-de-sac (Yang, 2006, as citied in Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). Armitage (2007) also links permeability to increased risk of burglary in

PAGE 19

19 addition to increased risk of victimization in ge neral. The author assessed and compared 25 SBD and 25 non-SBD residential developments in an e ffort to identify those environmental factors that increase a propertys crime vulnerability or risk. Environmental factors serving as proxies for permeability included a propertys proximity to a footpath, whether that footpath leads to shops (commercial uses), other resi dential areas, or a network of ot her footpaths, and the level of pedestrian and vehicular movement through the property (Armitage, 2007, p. 101). These factors were shown to be associated with risk of burglary and total cr ime at a statistically significant level among the sample properties: t he environmental factors which emerge as associated with elevated crime (and burglary) levels suggest that higher levels of movement past the home are generally associated with hi gher levels of risk (Armitage, 2007, p. 101). Another aspect of the debate over permeability involves the facility with which police officers can patrol the area. Cozens and Hillier (2008) argue that policing is more cost-effective and less labor-intensive when conducted in cul-de-sacs, as multiple routes complicate a law enforcement officers ability to secure an area Knowles (2003) and Town and OToole (2005) found significantly higher annual policing costs associated with New Urbanist developments over SBD developments, however the validity of their methodologies has been met with some degree of skepticism (see, for example, Steuteville, 2003). Cozens and Hillier (2008) cite the work of several researchers who support permeability based on its capacity to produce greater levels of natural surveill ance through increased pedestrian flow and activity (Hillier, 1998; H illier & Shu, 2000a, 2000b). Some scholars have met this view with skepticism, arguing that th e opportunity for natura l surveillance does not necessarily equate to the pract ice of natural surveillance (Ma yhew, 1979, as cited in Cozens and Hillier, 2008). Others argue that a large part of CPTED is reducing fear of crime and increasing

PAGE 20

20 feelings of safety, thus whether people are actually watching the street or property takes a secondary role to the fact that residents and potential offenders alike know they can be seen (Cozens, Saville & Hillier, 2005). Arguments for Compatibility Some scholars argue that Ne w Urbanism and CPTED are essentially compatible. For example, Crowe (2000) lists nine major CPTED strategies which Atlas (2008) labels as New Urbanist-friendly: provide clear border definition of controlled space, provide clearly marked transitional zones, relocation of gathering areas place safe activities in unsafe locations (e.g., encouraging business activity in a problem area) place unsafe activities in safe locations (e.g., providing a skateboard park for sk ateboarders as an alternative to less safe locations), redesign the use of space to provide natural barriers, im prove scheduling of space, redesign or revamps space to increase the perception of natural surveillance, and ov ercome distance and isolation (Crowe, 2000, p. 126). Schneider and Kitchen (2007) argue that a tr ade-off exists in the development of New Urbanist communities: in choosi ng more attractive, livable comm unities to build and live in, we are giving up some degree of safety. Others, such as Cozens (2008b), argue the crime prevention dimension of New Urbanism is limited, lacki ng both critical discussion and systematic evaluation (Cozens, 2008b, p. 433). In his view CPTED should be used as a tool for New Urbanists to evaluate the safety of developments: New Urbanism could benefit substantially from embracing aspects of CPTED in order to foster safer and more sustainable communities (Cozens, 2008b, p. 433). While several researchers contend that CPTED and New Urbanism likely can be compatible (Crowe, 2000; Atlas, 2008, Schneider & Kitchen, 2007), street layout is seldom if ever listed as a compatible feature among the tw o design theories. Arguably, a review of the

PAGE 21

21 literature suggests that more permeable street networks are associat ed with increased instances of crime as compared to less permeable street ne tworks, such as culs-de-sac. However the heightened opportunity for crime that may exis t in those neighborhoods with grid-patterned street layouts may be offset by increased atte ntion to CPTED and environmental criminology (Cozens, 2008b). Examining an area not only w ith an eye for surveillance, access control, support activities, management/mai ntenance, and target hardening, but also with knowledge of crime patterns, crime attractors and crime generato rs may help to reconcile this increased crime risk (Cozens, 2008b; Brantingham and Bran tingham, 1998, as cited in Cozens, 2008b).

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter presents a m ethodology for expl oring and testing whet her there is some measurable relationship between the presence of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)-related elements1 and walkability. This study emerges from research concerning the impact of school siting decisions on the potential for childre n to walk and bicycle to school. That research conducted by Dr. Ruth Steiner at the Universi ty of Florida from 2006 to 2008 focused on four Florida school distri cts and forty elementary and middle schools within them for detailed analys is of school siting decisions, th e potential for walkability, and actual levels of childre n walking and biking to school. In this study, the methodology set forth by Steiner et al. (2008) is used to determine the potential for children to walk and bicycle to school in a sample of elementary schools. Re sults from the walkability analysis are then compared to the results of a CPTED survey to identify and explore any relationship(s) between walkability and the presence of CPTED-related elements. The study has three research com ponents: (1) analysis of the pot ential for children to walk to school based on a variety of measures for a samp le of elementary schools; (2) analysis of the presence and location of CPTED-related elements at and around the sample school sites; and (3) comparison of the potential for walkability to the presence of CPTED-related elements and identifying any relationship(s) or interaction. 1 The term CPTED-related element is used throughou t in place of the more common CPTED application, CPTED mechanism or CPTED implementation because the latter terms suggest that an intervention has taken place. It is important to note that the researcher has no knowledge of whether any elem ents of the built environment were designed with conscious intention to implement place-based crime prevention techniques. That is to say, it is not known whether elements of the built environment obser ved as exhibiting some application of CPTED concepts were intentionally designed to do so. Thus, CPTED-relate d element is the appropriate term for referencing such elements of the built environment for the purposes of this re search, as it does not suggest any intention on the part of the designer (architect, developer, planner, or other).

PAGE 23

23 Study Area The City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was sele c ted for this research for several reasons. Fort Lauderdale resides in Brow ard County, a pioneer in CPTED application both generally and for school environments. In the late 1970s, the Na tional Institute of Justice funded a before and after study of four Broward high schools that were remodeled to conform to CPTED principles. Examples of modifications incl uded adding windows for surveill ance, adding signs/markers of school identity, limiting access to isolated areas, relocating informal gathering areas to areas providing natural surveillance, and redesigning busloading zones and student parking in order to reduce congestion and improve surveillance (Wilcox, Land & Hunt, 2002, p. 202). The changes resulted in declines in th eft and assault compared to othe r schools in the county. Atlas (2008) discusses the implementation of a stri ct code enforcement policy from 1987 to 1990 in which Fort Lauderdale property owners were held liable for criminal ac tivity conducted on their property and CPTED measures we re implemented in troubled ar eas. This period resulted in significant decreases in criminal activity and thus police workload, as well as increases in quality of life for city residents (Atlas, 2008). Brow ard County was also one of the first local governments to adopt a CPTED ordinance in 1996 (Virginia Crime Prevention Association, 2005). Today, the Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances mandates the use of CPTED principles in the design of all new developments (Fort La uderdale Code of Ordinances, Sec. 47-25). The implementation of CPTED principles in de velopment activity, including school-related development activity, has been institu tionalized in the county for decades. Beyond the citys history of CP TED policy, Fort Lauderdale was selected as the study area because of its potential for walkability. Fort Lauderdale exhibits small school attendance zones in comparison to other areas of Broward C ounty, and small school attendance zones often indicate greater potential for walking to school (Steiner et al., 2008). In addition, land use

PAGE 24

24 intensities (measured using residential density as per Kelly & Becker, 2000) are higher in Fort Lauderdale than in other areas of the county. Re search has suggested that as land use intensity increases, crime risk increases (Angel, 1968, as cited in Cozens, 2008a). Thus, Fort Lauderdale represents an area where children likely live in neighborhoods that have some degree of crime risk and are designed with both CPTED features and features that enhance the potential for walkability in mind. Sixteen elementary schools are located within the Fort Lauderdale city limits: Bayview, Bennett, Dillard, Floranada, Stephen Foster, Harbordale, Lauderdale Manors, Thurgood Marshall, North Fork, North Side, Riverland, Ro ck Island, Sunland Par k, Walker and Westwood Heights. Table 3-1 presents an overview of each school including information on school age, capacity, performance and attendance zone size. A walkability analysis and CPTED analysis were performed for each of the sixteen schools. Walkability Analysis The potential for walking to school was an alyzed using the m ethodology set forth by Steiner et al. (2008). Using GIS, pedestrian sheds of varying sizes were generated around each school based on distances of two m iles, one mile and one half mile. Four sheds were generated for each distance: (1) the pedestrian shed (strai ght-line or crow-fly distance from the school); (2) the network pedestrian shed (distance along th e street network); (3) th e adjusted pedestrian shed (adjusted to school attendance zone boundaries ); and (4) the network adjusted pedestrian shed (adjusted to school attendan ce zone boundaries). Appendix A offers a visual representation of the pedestrian shed generation process for each school, as well as maps of the half mile network pedestrian sheds. Several measures of walkability were calcula ted within each pedestrian shed. Most measures can be classified as measures of resi dential density residential parcel density and

PAGE 25

25 gross and net dwelling unit densities or measures of street network c onnectivity intersection density, road density, connected node ratio, li nk node ratio, street c onnectivity index, and pedestrian route directness. Pe destrian shed coverage the pe rcentage of the school attendance zone land area covered by the pedestrian shed was also considered. Characteristics of residential densities, street ne twork connectivity and pedestrian shed coverage have been shown to be reliable indicators of walk ability, particularly with regard to childrens travel to school (City of Raleigh, NC, 2008; Dill, 2004; Steiner et al., 2008; Steiner et al., forthcoming). In Table 3-2, each measure is defined and an ideal or th reshold value is provided based on findings from relevant literature. CPTED Analysis A CPTED a nalysis was conducted at each of th e sixteen schools using both windshield and walking survey practices. A map was created for each school showing the half mile radius around the school, the half mile network adjusted pedestrian shed (reflecting the most reasonable walking distance for students), locations of crossing guards, locations of hazardous walking conditions, and other perceived barr iers/facilitators to wa lking such as major roads. These maps were used in the field for purposes of orientat ion and observation. In addition, in excess of 300 photographs were taken of the schools and su rrounding neighborhoods for further examination upon return from the field. The presence of CPTED-related elements was analyzed using a survey instrument modified from a similar tool developed by Schne ider, Walker and Sprague (2000). The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities Safe School Facilities Checklist (2009) and the Florida Safe School Design Guidelines (University of Fl orida School of Architecture, 2003) were also considered. The evaluation tool us ed is presented in Table 3-3. E ach school was scored in three categories surveillance, access control, and territ oriality based on the presence or absence of

PAGE 26

26 CPTED-related elements. A crime risk value of one two or three was assigned to each category. A risk value of one indicates minimal risk a nd significant presence of CPTED-related elements, a value of two indicates medium risk, suggesting some evidence of misbehavior and absence of CPTED-related elements, and a value of three in dicates high risk including major design flaws and/or serious problems and signifi cant absence of CPTED-related el ements. It is important to note that the crime risk score is based solely on the presence or abse nce of CPTED-related elements and is not influenced by factors such as crime rates or socioeconomic/demographic data. Actual instances of crime and socio economic/demographic data are considered as intervening variables in the comparison of th e walkability and CPTED analyses, but are not considered in the crime risk score. Vulnerability analyses are often largely subj ective (Atlas, 2008), and this analysis is no exception. Risk values of two a nd three were distinguished based on several factors, including the number of observed CPTED-related elements and the researchers own perception of safety. In addition, the Three-D approach to space assessment (Crowe, 1991, 2000) designation, definition, and design was kept in mind in conducting each a ssessment. Answers to the following questions were used to measure the presence of CPTED-related elements: Does the space clearly belong to someone or some group? Is the intended us e clearly defined? Does the physical design match the intended use? Does the design provide the means for normal users to naturally control the ac tivities, to control access, and to provide surveillance? (Crowe, 2000, p. 40). Comparison of Analyses Results of the walkability and CPTED analyses were then co mpared to identify any patterns or interaction. The rese arch hypothesis, based on a review of the literature, is that walkability is negatively correlated with the presence of CPTED-related elements. It is

PAGE 27

27 hypothesized that schools with a higher degree of walkability will have a lower prevalence of CPTED-related elements, as measured by a higher crime risk value.

PAGE 28

28 Figure 3-1. Map of study area, including selected schools and attendance zones

PAGE 29

29 Table 3-1. Overview of selected schools Elementary school Year built N umber of student stations N umber of classrooms Average class size Utilization2 School grade 2007-08 Annual yearly p rogress (AYP3) 2007-08 Percent AYP criteria met 2007-08 School attendance zone (SAZ) size (square miles) SAZ size Z values4 Bayview 1958 500 26 20 103% A Y 100% 2.98 -0.06 Bennett 1958 542 29 15 79% C N 87% 3.36 0.09 Croissant Park 1951 846 46 14 76% A N 97% 11.33 3.23 Dillard 1954 795 43 17 91% A Y 100% 1.26 -0.74 Floranada 2000 814 44 17 92% B N 92% 1.62 -0.60 Foster 1961 891 47 13 69% A N 90% 3.69 0.22 Harbordale 1959 682 35 10 50% A Y 100% 4.71 0.62 Lauderdale Manors 1954 1116 59 9 49% C N 95% 1.44 -0.67 Marshall 1995 745 40 12 63% B N 90% 0.60 -1.00 N orth For k 1965 713 38 14 74% C N 95% 1.48 -0.65 N orth Side 1927 608 32 14 73% D N 77% 1.27 -0.74 Riverland 1958 633 34 16 85% A Y 100% 1.43 -0.67 Rock Island 1960 580 30 21 106% C N 97% 1.94 -0.47 Sunland Park 1958 539 29 14 76% F N 79% 0.53 -1.03 Walker 1959 1050 57 12 67% D N 79% 1.88 -0.50 Westwood Heights 1958 845 46 14 77% C N 85% 1.54 -0.63 Fort Lauderdale mean 1960.9 744 40 15 76.9%91.4% 2.57 -0.23 Broward County mean 1974.5 918 49 16 85.7%A (median)95.1% 3.14 0.81 2 Utilization is equal to the number of students enrolled divided by student capacity. 3 The Federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires st ates to evaluate the performance of all students in all public schools in order to determine whether schools, school districts, and the state have made adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on measures in reading, mathematic s, writing, graduation rate, and whether or not the school tested enough students in each group. 4 Z values calculated using Broward County mean.

PAGE 30

30 Table 3-2. Measures of walkability (Source: adapted from Bejleri et al., forthcoming). Measure Description Ideal Value Residential parcel density Parcels per gross square mile None identified, though greater values suggest shorter walking distances between destinations Gross dwelling unit density Units per gross acre None identified, though greater values suggest shorter walking distances between destinations Net dwelling unit density Units per acre of residential land use 5 units per acre (City of Raleigh, NC, 2008) Intersection density Inters ections per square mile Over 78 intersections per square mile (Frank, Schmid, Sallis, Chapman, & Saelens, 2005) Road density Linear road miles per square mile None identified, though greater values suggest greater street network connectivity Connected node ratio Ratio of intersections to the sum of intersections and cul de sacs Greater than 0.7; a maximum value is 1.0 indicates an absence of cul de sacs (Dill, 2004) Link node ratio Ratio of road segments between intersections (links) to the sum of intersections and cul de sacs (nodes) Greater than 1.4; a perfect grid has a ratio of 2.5 (Dill, 2004) Street connectivity index Inte rsections per linear road mile None identified, though greater values suggest greater street network connectivity Pedestrian route directness Ratio of network distance to straight line distance between two selected points, in this case between each residential parcel and the school Less than 1.5 (Dill, 2004). Values closer to 1 suggest greater street network connectivity Pedestrian shed coverage Percentage of school attendance zone land area covered by pedestrian shed None identified, though greater values suggest a larger proportion of school attendance zone land area lies close to the school

PAGE 31

31 Table 3-3. Crime Prevention Through Environmenta l Design (CPTED) Survey Tool. A) Tool. B) Key. A Category Elements of the built environment to be observed Risk (1-3)5 Surveillance Sightlines and obstructions Potential for natural surveillance from surrounding buildings and land uses Traffic (pedestr ian, auto, other) Landscaping Windows Walls Obstructions to sound Activity placement/generation Cameras (mechanic al surveillance) Parking placement Access Control Entrances and exits Pathways and routes Traffic control Fencing Walls Contiguous properties Territoriality Signage Assignment of space Border definition Signs of disorder (litte r, graffiti, ajar doors and windows, abandonment or desertion, disrepair) Maintenance Management Landscaping B Risk value Description 1 Minimal risk: significant pres ence of CPTED-related elements 2 Medium risk: evidence of misbehav ior, some absence of CPTED-related elements 3 High risk: major design flaws and/or se rious problems, significant absence of CPTED-related elements 5 Crime risk is based solely on the presence or absence of CPTED-related elem ents. Actual instances of crime are considered as intervening variables in the comparis on of the walkability and CPTED analyses, but are not considered in the crime risk score.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter first presents overall findings from the walkability and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) analyses followed by a section profiling the schools individually. Results focus on the half mile networ k adjusted pedestrian shed, as that is the shed reflecting the most realistic walk ing distances to school. Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 summarize the results of the walkability and CPTED analyses Figures 4-1, 4-2, a nd 4-3 offer a visual comparison of each school attendance zone based on incidence of crime, demographic information including minority and youth popul ations, and residential property value. In analyzing the results of the walkability and CPTED analyses, patterns were sought among schools displaying the highest or lowest potential for walkability and schools displaying the lowest prevalence of CPTED-related elements (h ighest crime risk, as defined in Chapter 3). In Table 4-4, walkability indicator values are colo red blue or yellow if they indicate higher or lower walkability, respectively. Crime risk valu es are colored red if they indicate lower prevalence of CPTED-related elements (higher crime risk). From this table, it is evident that schools with higher walkability do not necessarily have a lower prevalence of CPTED-related elements (higher crime risk), the hypothesized outc ome. In fact, at leas t three patterns can be distinguished: high walkability corresponding with low prevalence of CPTED-related elements (high crime risk), low walkability corres ponding with low preval ence of CPTED-related elements (high crime risk), and high walkability corresponding with high prevalence of CPTEDrelated elements (low crime risk). Sunland Pa rk, Rock Island, and Walker elementary schools follow these three respective patterns. Photographs of the schools (Figures 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6) as well as the school profiles below can begin to shed some light on the interactions between

PAGE 33

33 walkability and the presence of CP TED-related elements. These re sults are discussed further in the next chapter. In the remainder of this chapter, measures of walkability and the results of the CPTED analysis are summarized for each school. For the CPTED analysis, specific risk factors are discussed for categories in which the school recei ved a score higher than 1 minimal risk. In addition, any intervening variables such as crime, race, population age, and property value thought to potentially influence the results of the analyses are mentioned. For a summary of values for all examined interven ing variables, see Table 4-1. Bayview Elementary School Measures of residential densit y, street connectivity and pedest rian shed coverage suggest the Bayview half mile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a less well-connected street network and fewer residences nearby than other area scho ols; however, indicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Bayview and the surrounding ne ighborhood environment exhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, access control and territoriality. Bennett Elementary School Measures of residential densit y, street connectivity and pedest rian shed coverage suggest the Bennett half m ile adjusted network pedestri an shed has a comparably well-connected street network and a comparable proportion of residen ces nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold cr iteria for a walk able neighborhood. Overall, Bennett and the surrounding nei ghborhood environment exhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, access control and territoriality.

PAGE 34

34 Croissant Park Elementary School Overall, m easures of residential density and street connectivity sugge st the Croissant Park half mile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comparably well-connec ted street network and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria for a walkable neighbor hood. The relatively large size of the school attendance zone, however, means fewer students are captured within the pedestrian shed compared to other area schools. Overall, Croissant Park and the surroundi ng neighborhood environment exhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, access control and territoriality. Dillard Elementary School Overall, m easures of residential density and street connectivity suggest the Dillard half mile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a co mparably or slightly le ss well-connected street network and a smaller proportion of residences near by as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets some threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Dillard and the surrounding neighborhoo d environment exhibit some absence of CPTED-related elements (minimal to medium crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance and access control, and a risk value of 2 medium risk for territoriality. Dillard was scored a risk value of 2 for territoriality due to signs of disorder and disrepair for a significant num ber of neighborhoo d properties. Taking into account interveni ng variables, the population residing within the Dillard school attendance zone is predominantly minorit y, there is a significantly higher proportion of youth than other area schools, and the average assessed re sidential parcel valu e within the school attendance zone is significantl y lower than other area schools.

PAGE 35

35 Floranada Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugg est the Floranada half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comp arably well-connected street network and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets most threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Floranada and the surrounding ne ighborhood environment e xhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, access control and territoriality. Stephen Foster Elementary School Measures of residential dens ity and street connectivity s uggest the Foster half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comp arably well-connected street network and a comparable or slightly lesser pr oportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold cr iteria for a walk able neighborhood. Overall, Foster and the surrounding nei ghborhood environment exhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for access control, territoriality, and surveillance. Harbordale Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugges t the Harbordale half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comparably well-connected street network and a greater proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Harbordale and the surrounding ne ighborhood environment exhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, access control and territoriality.

PAGE 36

36 Lauderdale Manors Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugges t the Lauderdale Manors half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comparably well-connected street network and a smaller proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets some threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Lauderdale Manors and the surr ounding neighborhood environment exhibit some absence of CPTED-related elements (minimal to medium crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, a nd a risk value of 2 medium risk for access control and territoriality. Lauderd ale Manors is located adjacent to a park, and several portables open onto a basketball court. It is unclear whether the court is public property, or the property of the school. Some graffiti was observed to the rear of the park near the school, as well as a sign alerting the public to the location of a sexual predator living in the area. Taking into account intervening variables, ther e is a significantly higher crime rate for Lauderdale Manors school attenda nce zone than for other area schools, the population residing within the Lauderdale Manors schoo l attendance zone is predomin antly minority, and there is a significantly higher proportion of youth than other area schools. Thurgood Marshall Elementary School Measures of residential dens ity and street connectivity s uggest the Marsha ll half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a more well-connected street ne twork and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Marshall and the surrounding nei ghborhood environment exhibit a significant absence of CPTED-related elements (high crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for access control, a risk value of 2 medium risk for su rveillance, and a risk

PAGE 37

37 value of 3 high risk for territoriality. The homes in the neighborhood surround Marshall Elementary exhibit considerable signs of disr epair, such as broken or boarded windows and doors, dilapidated fencing, and litter. At the ti me of the survey, there was a temporary police tower positioned in the neighborhood adjoining th e school, suggesting crim inal activity in the area. There was a significant amount of pedestri an traffic in the area, as well as informal pedestrian paths and short-cuts through residential properties. Taking into account intervening variables, ther e is a significantly higher crime rate for Marshall school attendance zone th an for other area schools, and the population residing within the Marshall school attendance zone is predominantly minority. North Fork Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugges t the North Fork half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comp arably well-connected street network and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria fo r a walkable neighborhood. Overall, North Fork and the surrounding ne ighborhood environment e xhibit some absence of CPTED-related elements (minimal to medium crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance and access control, and a risk value of 2 medium risk for territoriality. There is a public housing comp lex adjacent to the school which exhibits some signs of disorder. North Side Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugges t the North Side half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comparab ly or more well-connected street network and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria fo r a walkable neighborhood.

PAGE 38

38 Overall, North Side and the surrounding ne ighborhood environment exhibit some absence of CPTED-related elements (minimal to medium crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for territoriality, and a risk value of 2 medium risk for surveillance and access control. North Side Elementary displays a prominent sign reading all campus areas are monitored by 24 hr. video security cameras. Th is same sign was found at most Fort Lauderdale schools, however it was particularly prominent at No rth Side. At the time of the survey, the area around the school exhibited some signs of disorder such as litter. An en trance to the playground from the rear of the school offers an opportunity for unauthorized access we re the gate ever left unlocked, and there is little opportuni ty for natural surveillance in that area due to lack of windows. The school borders a park; fencing and landscaping clearly delineate the two properties. Taking into account intervening variables, ther e is a significantly higher crime rate for North Side school attendance zone than for othe r area schools, the population residing within the North Side school attendance zone is predominantly minority, and there is a significantly higher proportion of youth than other area schools. Riverland Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugg est the Riverland half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comp arably well-connected street network and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets most threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Riverland and the surrounding ne ighborhood environment exhibit some absence of CPTED-related elements (minimal to medium crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, and access control, and a risk value of 2 medium risk

PAGE 39

39 for territoriality. There are bars on the windows of many homes in the neighborhood as well as a significant degree of dilapidation. Rock Island Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugges t the Rock Island half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comparably or less well-connected street network and a comparable or lesser proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets most threshold cr iteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Rock Island and the surrounding neighborhood environment exhibit some absence of CPTED-related elements (minimal to medium crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for access control and territ oriality, and a risk value of 3 high risk for surveillance. Rock Island is located along a major road, and a substantial grass buffer exists between the road and the school itself, limiti ng the opportunity for natural surveillance. Properties along a second side of the school property are industrial in use, surrounded by a tall wall topped with concertina wire and affixed with bad dog signs. A third side of the property adjoins a vacant lot, and the four th side is separated from th e school by a tall, opaque wall. Although the property is clearly separate from its surrounding uses, the design of the area provides little opportunity for natural survei llance of the pedestrian environment. Sunland Park Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugges t the Sunland Park half m ile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a more well-connected street network and a greater proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicato rs suggest that it meets most threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Sunland Park and the surrounding ne ighborhood environment e xhibit a significant absence of CPTED-related elements (high crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1

PAGE 40

40 minimal risk for access control, and a risk va lue of 2 medium risk for surveillance and territoriality. The school adjoin s commercial uses, homes, and a park. The commercial uses are either abandoned or exhibit bars on the window s. The neighborhood exhibits some signs of disorder such as desertion and broken windows. Taking into account intervening variables, ther e is a significantly higher crime rate for Sunland Park school attendance zone than for ot her area schools, the population residing within the Sunland Park school attendance zone is pred ominantly minority, and th ere is a significantly higher proportion of youth than other area schools. Walker Elementary School Measures of residential dens ity and street connectivity s uggest the W alker half mile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a comparab ly or more well-connected street network and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. Indicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria fo r a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Walker and the surrounding nei ghborhood environment exhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, access control and territoriality. Westwood Heights Elementary School Measures of residential density and street connectivity sugg est the W estwood Heights half mile adjusted network pedestrian shed has a co mparably or more well-c onnected street network and a comparable proportion of residences nearby as other area schools. I ndicators suggest that it meets threshold criteria for a walkable neighborhood. Overall, Westwood Heights and the surrounding neighborhood environment exhibit significant presence of CPTED-related elements (minimal crime risk). The area was scored a risk value of 1 minimal risk for surveillance, access control and territoriality.

PAGE 41

41 Figure 4-1. Crime incidence aggregated by homeo wner association (HOA) jurisdiction, 1/2008 4/2009, and minority population. Includes robbery, residential burglary, vehicle burglary, business burglary, and vehicle thefts (Data Sources: Fort Lauderdale Police Department, US Census Bureau).

PAGE 42

42 Figure 4-2. Crime incidence aggregated by homeo wner association (HOA) jurisdiction, 1/2008 4/2009, and youth population. Includes robbery, residential burglary, vehicle burglary, business burglary, and vehicle thefts (Data Sources: Fort Lauderdale Police Department, US Census Bureau).

PAGE 43

43 Figure 4-3. Average assessed residential parcel value (2008) a ggregated by school attendance zone.

PAGE 44

44 A B C D Figure 4-4. Photographs of Sunland Park Elemen tary School and vicinity. A) Vacant commercial buildings. B) Commercial bui lding with barred windows. C) Front entrance of school facing buildings depicted in A and B. D) Vacant residence.

PAGE 45

45 A B C Figure 4-5. Photographs of Rock Island Elementary School and vicinity. A) Fence bordering school property. B) Major road at front of school. C) Adjacent industrial area bordered by high, opaque wall with con certina wire and bad dog signs.

PAGE 46

46 A B C Figure 4-6. Photographs of Walker Elementary Sc hool and vicinity. A) Ho me in vicinity of Walker. B) Home in vicinity of Wa lker showing barred windows. C) New construction near the school displa ying Building Safer Communities sign.

PAGE 47

47 Table 4-1. Profile of selected intervening variab les (crime, race, population age, property value). Elementary school Year built *Number of crimes reported 1/08 4/09 *Crimes per 100 p opulation 1/08 4/09 **% C.**% A.-A.**% Other Minority**% Hispanic**% Under age 18 **% Over age 18 ***Average assessed residential parcel value (2008) Bayview 1958 363 1.1 97.1%0.6% 2.2% 5.1% 8.8% 91.2% $726,553 Bennett 1958 1042 2.0 86.2%7.3% 6.5% 8.2% 12.1% 87.9% $473,883 Croissant Park 1951 854 1.7 76.5%16.9% 6.6% 14.7% 15.5% 84.5% $334,717 Dillard 1954 72 1.3 0.9% 97.0% 2.1% 1.0% 35.4% 64.6% $197,978 Floranada 2000 281 1.1 89.3%3.1% 7.6% 13.8% 16.9% 83.1% $359,105 Foster 1961 229 1.3 76.8%14.2% 9.0% 22.6% 22.9% 77.1% $314,911 Harbordale 1959 655 1.3 95.1%1.6% 3.3% 6.5% 10.1% 89.9% $1,320,252 Lauderdale Manors 1954 656 2.7 8.1% 82.1% 9.8% 3.5% 33.7% 66.3% $214,813 Marshall 1995 528 2.5 29.2%55.1% 15.7% 6.5% 27.8% 72.2% $231,677 North Fork 1965 810 2.3 27.1%68.6% 4.3% 5.1% 28.2% 71.8% $303,019 North Side 1927 1406 2.6 31.7%50.1% 18.2% 9.5% 26.5% 73.5% $280,048 Riverland 1958 662 1.5 57.8%32.5% 9.7% 24.1% 26.8% 73.2% $236,789 Rock Island 1960 139 2.2 29.8%64.5% 5.7% 6.2% 25.4% 74.6% $204,946 Sunland Park 1958 725 3.1 1.2% 94.9% 3.9% 1.4% 37.6% 62.4% $199,746 Walker 1959 1015 2.2 63.2%31.2% 5.6% 7.0% 16.2% 83.8% $525,886 Westwood Heights 1958 439 1.9 14.2%78.1% 7.8% 8.6% 31.8% 68.2% $207,838 Fort Lauderdale mean 1961 617 1.9 49.0%43.6% 7.4% 9.0% 23.5% 76.5% $383,260 Crimes reported from January 2008 to April 2009 in those homeowner association jurisdictions intersecting the school attendance zone. Data from the Fort Lauderdale Police Department. ** Percentage of the population Caucasian, African-American, other minority, Hispanic, under age 18, and over age 18. Population residing within school attendance zone calculated from the sum of population of intersecting census blocks (intersecting centroid). Data from the US Census Bureau. *** Average assessed value of residential parcels (centroids) intersecting school attendance zone. Data from the Broward County Property Appraiser.

PAGE 48

48 Table 4-2. Walkability indicator va lues for half mile network pedestrian shed adjusted to school attendance zone boundaries. Elementary school Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density N et dwelling unit density Intersection density Road density Connected node ratio Link node ratio Street connectivity index Pedestrian route directness Pedestrian shed coverage Bayview 921.81 2.04 5.77 113.70 18.52 0.93 1.73 6.14 1.47 8.26% Bennett 2354.00 4.28 6.62 169.40 23.10 0.98 1.94 7.33 1.13 8.42% Croissant Park 1610.55 3.65 8.09 134.53 20.84 0.95 2.03 6.45 1.44 2.30% Dillard 1703.70 2.67 4.94 144.87 18.79 0.86 1.69 7.71 1.71 13.66% Floranada 1387.20 3.46 8.10 192.87 22.97 0.93 1.70 8.40 1.52 16.63% Foster 2351.91 3.70 5.33 193.54 25.54 0.94 1.78 7.58 1.30 12.87% Harbordale 1063.10 3.65 12.44 127.36 21.28 0.94 1.83 5.98 1.44 8.16% Lauderdale Manors 2409.04 3.79 4.71 129.36 23.13 0.98 1.89 5.59 1.35 28.37% Marshall 2739.83 5.29 7.42 159.46 24.86 1.00 2.24 6.41 1.18 34.21% N orth For k 1484.03 4.71 9.62 187.60 24.13 0.90 1.77 7.77 1.33 20.20% N orth Side 1686.88 3.64 7.66 166.70 24.89 0.99 2.22 6.70 1.19 31.71% Riverland 1534.06 2.94 6.75 205.66 24.21 0.97 1.73 8.50 1.61 20.78% Rock Island 681.55 1.26 5.22 70.35 15.07 0.84 1.95 4.67 1.42 11.70% Sunland Park 1272.88 7.64 16.98 263.94 27.81 1.00 1.85 9.49 1.63 43.98% Walker 1605.65 6.33 9.91 278.37 28.82 0.97 1.69 9.66 1.21 13.20% Westwood Heights 1999.42 3.38 5.90 261.39 26.82 1.00 1.74 9.75 1.76 14.19% Fort Lauderdale mean 1675.35 3.90 7.84 174.95 23.17 0.95 1.86 7.38 1.42 18.04% Fort Lauderdale standard deviation 573.68 1.55 3.21 57.60 3.61 0.05 0.18 1.51 0.19 11.26%

PAGE 49

49 Table 4-3. CPTED survey results. A) Survey results. Risk values are based solely on the presence/absence of CPTED-related elements. B) Key. A Elementary school Surveillance risk value Access control risk value Territoriality risk value Sum risk values Bayview 1 1 1 3 Bennett 1 1 1 3 Croissant Park 1 1 1 3 Dillard 1 1 2 4 Floranada 1 1 1 3 Foster, Stephen 1 1 1 3 Harbordale 1 1 1 3 Lauderdale Manors 1 2 2 5 Marshall, Thurgood 2 1 3 6 North Fork 1 1 2 4 North Side 2 2 1 5 Riverland 1 1 2 4 Rock Island 3 1 1 5 Sunland Park 2 1 2 5 Walker 1 1 1 3 Westwood Heights 1 1 1 3 Fort Lauderdale range 1 to 3 1 to 2 1 to 3 3 to 6 Fort Lauderdale mean 1.31 1.13 1.44 3.88 B Risk value Description 1 Minimal risk: significant pres ence of CPTED-related elements 2 Medium risk: evidence of misbehav ior, some absence of CPTED-related elements 3 High risk: major design flaws and/or se rious problems, significant absence of CPTED-related elements

PAGE 50

50 Table 4-4. Z values asso ciated with Table 4-2.1 1 Blue or yellow color indicates the value is more than one standa rd deviation away from the mean Blue suggests higher walkabi lity; yellow suggests lower walkability. Red-pink color indicates high crime risk (based so lely on the presence/absence of CPTED-related elements), includ ing major design flaws and/or serious problems and significant absence of CPTED-related elements. Elementary school Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density N et dwelling unit density Intersection density Road density Connected node ratio Link node ratio Street connectivity index Pedestrian route directness Pedestrian shed coverage Sum Crime Risk Bayview -1.31 -1.20 -0.65 -1.06 -1.29 -0.33 -0.72 -0.83 0.27 -0.87 3 Bennett 1.18 0.25 -0.38 -0.10 -0.02 0.65 0.44 -0.03 -1.49 -0.85 3 Croissant Park -0.11 -0.16 0.08 -0.70 -0.65 -0.06 0.94 -0.62 0.13 -1.40 3 Dillard 0.05 -0.79 -0.90 -0.52 -1.21 -1.83 -0.97 0.22 1.52 -0.39 4 Floranada -0.50 -0.28 0.08 0.31 -0.06 -0.43 -0.93 0.67 0.55 -0.13 3 Foster 1.18 -0.13 -0.78 0.32 0.65 -0.21 -0.48 0.13 -0.64 -0.46 3 Harbordale -1.07 -0.16 1.43 -0.83 -0.52 -0.14 -0.19 -0.93 0.13 -0.88 3 Lauderdale Manors 1.28 -0.07 -0.98 -0.79 -0.01 0.68 0.16 -1.19 -0.37 0.92 5 Marshall 1.86 0.89 -0.13 -0.27 0.47 1.07 2.16 -0.64 -1.24 1.44 6 N orth For k -0.33 0.52 0.55 0.22 0.26 -0.96 -0.49 0.26 -0.43 0.19 4 N orth Side 0.02 -0.17 -0.06 -0.14 0.48 0.77 2.04 -0.45 -1.17 1.21 5 Riverland -0.25 -0.62 -0.34 0.53 0.29 0.41 -0.74 0.74 0.98 0.24 4 Rock Island -1.73 -1.70 -0.82 -1.82 -2.24 -2.25 0.49 -1.80 0.00 -0.56 5 Sunland Park -0.70 2.40 2.85 1.55 1.28 1.07 -0.03 1.40 1.10 2.31 5 Walker -0.12 1.56 0.64 1.80 1.56 0.48 -0.97 1.51 -1.09 -0.43 3 Westwood Heights 0.56 -0.33 -0.60 1.50 1.01 1.07 -0.70 1.57 1.74 -0.34 3

PAGE 51

51 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Discussion of Results In order to com pare the results of th e walkability and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) an alyses, charts were created comparing values for each walkability indicator to assessed crime risk valu es. The purpose of the charts is to examine individual measures of walkability for correla tion with prevalence of CPTED-related elements. (The charts are grouped in Appendix B.) In each chart, a single walkability indicator is compared to the results of the CPTED analysis for each schools half mile network adjusted pedestrian shed. The schools are ordered from sm allest to largest based on deviation from the mean value of the walkability measure. Crime ri sk values are then plotted on a secondary axis. Crime risk has a range of 3 to 6, with 6 indicating the lowest prev alence of CPTED-related elements. According to the research hypothesis, higher walkability values should correlate with higher crime risk values (5 6) and thus a lower prevalence of CPTED-related elements, and lower walkability values should correlate with lowe r crime risk values (3 4) and thus a higher prevalence of CPTED-related elements. Few if any measures of walkab ility appear to be correlated with the prevalence of CPTEDrelated elements. Pedestrian shed coverage is the sole measure that arguably shows a positive correlation with crime risk. Alt hough some of the more walkable schools have higher crime risk values, this is not the case for all schools a nd the opposite is not necessarily true for less walkable schools. For example, Marshall, No rth Side, Sunland Park, Walker and Westwood Heights elementary schools are th e most walkable schools based on walkability analyses. These schools have crime risk values of 6, 5, 5, 3 and 3, respectively, a range going from minimal to high crime risk, or high to low prevalence of CP TED-related elements. Rock Island, the least

PAGE 52

52 walkable school, has one of the highest crime risk values (5) indicating low prevalence of CPTED-related elements, contrary to the research hypothesis. Walker and Westwood Heights have low crime risk values, consis tent with the research hypothesis. Although there is considerable variation, the presence of CPTE D-related elements does not appear to interfere with walkab ility at several Fort Lauderdale schools. For example, measures of walkability for Floranada Elementary School are close to the Fort Lauderdale mean, indicating a high level of walkability compared to other Broward County schools. Floranadas crime risk value of 3 indicates a high preval ence of CPTED-related elements. This may be a result of small sample size, however, as only four schools had crime risk values greater than 4. Limitations and Opportunities for Further Research Lim itations in this study include characteristics of the sample schools. The sample size sixteen schools is not substa ntial enough for hypothesis testing a nd statistical analysis. In addition, the schools generally exhibi t a high level of walkability. A next step in this research would expand the study area to more schools wi thin Broward County, in cluding schools within those neighborhoods that e xhibit lower walkability. Because of the small sample size, the results may be best examined on a school-by-school basis rather than searching for patterns that exist in the city as a whole. For example, Sunland Park Elementary is a highly walkable school with a high degree of crime risk, consistent with the research hypothesis. The school is located next to an abandoned store, other commercial uses with bars on their windows, a nd residential neighborhoods that e xhibit a pattern of abandonment and disrepair. A next step for the study of Sunl and Park is to determine whether permeability is at least in part the cause of the perception of crime in the neighborhood. Marshall, Lauderdale Manors, North Side, Rock Island, and Sunland Park elementary schools exhibit the highest crime risk scores. Three of these schools are highly walkable, as indicated by walkability measures.

PAGE 53

53 The remaining two, however, are less walkable. Further study to de termine the role of permeability might involve interviewing teachers and neighborhood parents to gather their opinions about travel to school and child safety. Given resources and time, this study would benefit from the following methodological changes: The selection of a larger, more heterogenous sample of schools. This would allow for the inclusion of diverse street patt erns (e.g., culs-de-sac, grid a nd numerous variations) so that permeability can be more effectively studied. In addition, a larger sample of schools would allow for a broader range of neighborhood age and allow the researcher to examine issues of neighborhood change. A CPTED survey that is more objective in its assessment criteria. In this study, all CPTED-related elements had equal weight in th e assessment. Some risk factors, however, may be more correlated with crime than othe rs, such as the presen ce of vacant buildings. One method for improving the assessment tool w ould be to determine weighting values for each CPTED-related element. Better quality, more granular crime data. Crim e data in this study was aggregated to the homeowner association level. Ideally, the researcher would ha ve the locations of crimes and could then geocode them. Surveys to determine actual levels of walking. This would enable analysis of whether measures of the physical environment the poten tial for walking and the potential for risk correlate with actual measures of human behavior. These surveys might consist of an observed count of students walking or an in-school teacher-administered survey. Surveys/interviews to assess perceptions of neighborhood safety by children, their parents and/or their teachers. The inclusion of schools and/or neighborhoods that have co nsciously implemented CPTED applications. This would allow for comp arison between schools exhibiting intended CPTED applications and those exhibiting CPTED-related elements in which the intention is unknown. Conclusions While results do not support a clear answer to th e question of how CPTED and walkability interact at school sites and in surrounding neighborhoods, this study presents an initial methodology for exploring the issue. A more refined methodology may help researchers and

PAGE 54

54 practitioners better understand facilitators and impediments to active transportation among children. With this information, planners will be more knowledgeable about the effects of CPTED on walkability and will be able to make informed recommendations to improve CPTEDinfluenced policies. Also, school facilities planners and official s will be better informed about these effects and can use the information to help maximize the potential for safe, active trips to school. This research is important in the critical analysis of the effects of CPTED implementation in general. Growing media focus on crime and te rrorism fuels public pressure to address safety and security, and as a result CPTED policies a nd practices are becomi ng more widespread. While the effects of CPTED implementation on cr ime rates have been widely documented, the effects of CPTED implementation on community livability are largely unexplored. This study analyzes the effects of CPTED on walkability, wh ich could provide a foundation for the analysis of the effects of CPTED on othe r community livability elements such as social interaction, environmental aesthetics and condi tions, recreational and entertai nment activities, and cultural resources.

PAGE 55

55 APPENDIX A DEFINING AND EXAMINING THE PEDES TRIAN SHED This appendix presents two figures for each of the sixteen Fort Lauderdale schools. The first shows steps taken to define the two mile ne twork pedestrian shed. (It should be noted that this process was also un dertaken for both the one mile and half mile pedestrian sheds. The twomile pedestrian shed is presented here because it represents the maximum student capture area.) The second offers an examination of the half-mile network pedestrian shed the shed in which students are most likely to walk to school as it offers a shorter wa lking distance. The two images contained within the second show the shed in cont ext of the entire school attendance zone as well a more focused view.

PAGE 56

56 A Figure A-1. Bayview Elementary School. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 57

57 B Figure A-1. Continued.

PAGE 58

58 A Figure A-2. Bennett Elementary School A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 59

59 B Figure A-2. Continued.

PAGE 60

60 A Figure A-3. Croissant Park Elemen tary School. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 61

61 B Figure A-3. Continued.

PAGE 62

62 A Figure A-4. Dillard Elementary Sc hool. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 63

63 B Figure A-4. Continued.

PAGE 64

64 A Figure A-5. Floranada Elementary School. A) Defi ning the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 65

65 B Figure A-5. Continued.

PAGE 66

66 A Figure A-6. Stephen Foster Elemen tary School. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 67

67 B Figure A-6. Continued.

PAGE 68

68 A Figure A-7. Harbordale Elementary School. A) Defining the pedest rian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 69

69 B Figure A-7. Continued.

PAGE 70

70 A Figure A-8. Lauderdale Manors Elementary School A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 71

71 B Figure A-8. Continued.

PAGE 72

72 A Figure A-9. Thurgood Marshall Elementary Scho ol. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 73

73 B Figure A-9. Continued.

PAGE 74

74 A Figure A-10. North Fork Elementary School. A) De fining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 75

75 B Figure A-10. Continued.

PAGE 76

76 A Figure A-11. North Side Elementary School. A) Defining the pedest rian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 77

77 B Figure A-11. Continued.

PAGE 78

78 A Figure A-12. Riverland Elementary School. A) Defining the pedest rian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 79

79 B Figure A-12. Continued.

PAGE 80

80 A Figure A-13. Rock Island Elementary School. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 81

81 B Figure A-13. Continued.

PAGE 82

82 A Figure A-14. Sunland Park Elementary School. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 83

83 B Figure A-14. Continued.

PAGE 84

84 A Figure A-15. Walker Elementary School. A) Defining the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 85

85 B Figure A-15. Continued.

PAGE 86

86 A Figure A-16. Westwood Heights Elementary School. A) Defini ng the pedestrian shed. B) Examining the half mile network pedestrian shed.

PAGE 87

87B Figure A-16. Continued.

PAGE 88

88 APPENDIX B WALKABILITY INDICATORS AND CRIME RISK This appendix groups charts showing the interaction between i ndividual measures of walkability and the prevalence of CPTED-related elements (as rated in terms of crime risk), discussed in Chapter 5.

PAGE 89

89 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000Rock Island Bayview Harbordale Sunland Park Floranada North Fork Riverland Walker Croissant Park North Side Dillard Westwood Heights Foster Bennett Lauderdale Manors Marshall Crime Risk Residential Parcel DensityResidential Parcel Density and Crime Risk Crime Risk Residential Parcel Density ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-1. Residential Parcel Density and Crime Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0Rock Island Bayview Dillard Riverland Westwood Heights Floranada North Side Croissant Park Harbordale Foster Lauderdale Manors Bennett North Fork Marshall Walker Sunland Park Crime Risk Gross Dwelling Unit DensityGross Dwelling Unit Density and Crime Risk Crime Risk Gross DwellingUnit Density ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-2. Gross Dwelling Un it Density and Crime Risk

PAGE 90

90 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0Lauderdale Manors Dillard Rock Island Foster Bayview Westwood Heights Bennett Riverland Marshall North Side Croissant Park Floranada North Fork Walker Harbordale Sunland Park Crime Risk Net Dwelling Unit DensityNet Dwelling Unit Density and Crime Risk Crime Risk Net DwellingUnit Density ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-3. Net Dwelling Unit Density and Crime Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 50 100 150 200 250 300Rock Island Bayview Harbordale Lauderdale Manors Croissant Park Dillard Marshall North Side Bennett North Fork Floranada Foster Riverland Westwood Heights Sunland Park Walker Crime Risk Intersection DensityIntersection Density and Crime Risk Crime Risk IntersectionDensity ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-4. Intersection De nsity and Crime Risk

PAGE 91

91 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Rock Island Bayview Dillard Croissant Park Harbordale Floranada Bennett Lauderdale Manors North Fork Riverland Marshall North Side Foster Westwood Heights Sunland Park Walker Crime Risk Road DensityRoad Density and Crime Risk Crime Risk RoadDensity ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-5. Road Density and Crime Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05Rock Island Dillard North Fork Floranada Bayview Foster Harbordale Croissant Park Riverland Walker Bennett Lauderdale Manors North Side Marshall Westwood Heights Sunland Park Crime Risk Connected Node RatioConnected Node Ratio and Crime Risk Crime Risk Connected Node Ratio ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-6. Connected Node Ratio and Crime Risk

PAGE 92

92 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5Dillard Walker Floranada Riverland Bayview Westwood Heights North Fork Foster Harbordale Sunland Park Lauderdale Manors Bennett Rock Island Croissant Park North Side Marshall Crime Risk Link Node RatioLink Node Ratio and Crime Risk Crime Risk Link Node Ratio ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-7. Link Node Ratio and Crime Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Rock Island Lauderdale Manors Harbordale Bayview Marshall Croissant Park North Side Bennett Foster Dillard North Fork Floranada Riverland Sunland Park Walker Westwood Heights Crime Risk Street Connectivity IndexStreet Connectivity Index and Crime Risk Crime Risk Street Connectivity Index ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-8. Street Connectiv ity Index and Crime Risk

PAGE 93

93 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00Westwood Heights Dillard Sunland Park Riverland Floranada Bayview Croissant Park Harbordale Rock Island Lauderdale Manors North Fork Foster Walker North Side Marshall Bennett Crime Risk Pedestrian Route DirectnessPedestrian Route Directness and Crime Risk Crime Risk Pedestrian Route Directness ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-9. Pedestrian Route Directness and Crime Risk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%Croissant Park Harbordale Bayview Bennett Rock Island Foster Walker Dillard Westwood Heights Floranada North Fork Riverland Lauderdale Manors North Side Marshall Sunland Park Crime Risk Pedestrian Shed CoveragePedestrian Shed Coverage and Crime Risk Crime Risk Pedestrian Shed Coverage ZValue < 1 Z Value within one standard devation of the mean Z Value > 1 Figure B-10. Pedestrian Shed Coverage and Crime Risk

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX C SELECTED WALKABILITY INDICATOR VALUES FOR ALL PEDESTRIAN SHEDS This appendix presents a table for eac h school showing the following walkability indicator values for the school attendance zone a nd pedestrian sheds: residential parcel density, gross dwelling unit density, pedestri an route directness, land area, and pedestrian shed coverage.

PAGE 95

95 Table C-1. Bayview Elementary School walkability in dicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School Attendance Zone 1129.65 2.37 5.28 1.97 2.981 Half Mile Network Adjusted 921.81 2.04 5.77 1.47 0.246 8.26% Half Mile Network 891.79 1.97 5.77 1.47 0.255 8.54% Half Mile Crow Adjusted 917.52 2.95 8.18 1.49 0.476 15.97% Half Mile Crow 958.91 2.78 8.50 4.07 0.785 26.34% One Mile Network Adjusted 1231.90 2.40 4.95 1.35 0.614 20.61% One Mile Network 1137.18 2.57 6.09 2.56 0.833 27.93% One Mile Crow Adjusted 870.60 2.09 5.91 1.62 1.196 40.11% One Mile Crow 1272.71 3.27 8.00 4.08 3.141 105.36% Two Mile Network Adjusted 1332.90 2.71 4.89 1.61 1.531 51.36% Two Mile Network 1437.66 3.53 7.47 3.45 4.240 142.20% Two Mile Crow Adjusted 1148.80 2.39 5.09 2.06 2.248 75.41% Two Mile Crow 1114.53 2.55 7.07 3.08 12.566 421.47%

PAGE 96

96 Table C-2. Bennett Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1409.73 2.96 6.56 1.43 3.364 Half mile network adjusted 2354.00 4.28 6.62 1.13 0.283 8.42% Half mile network 2354.00 4.28 6.62 1.13 0.283 8.42% Half mile crow adjusted 1926.44 3.89 7.30 1.52 0.736 21.86% Half mile crow 1850.32 3.71 7.10 1.62 0.785 23.34% One mile network adjusted 2037.58 4.40 7.88 1.40 1.016 30.21% One mile network 1975.03 4.39 8.13 1.40 1.093 32.49% One mile crow adjusted 1855.54 3.97 7.37 1.50 1.660 49.35% One mile crow 1663.94 4.02 7.88 1.83 3.141 93.37% Two mile network adjusted 1768.13 3.77 7.41 1.50 1.849 54.97% Two mile network 1738.77 3.97 7.60 1.51 5.719 169.98% Two mile crow adjusted 1681.54 3.55 7.15 1.48 2.226 66.16% Two mile crow 1349.69 3.17 7.37 1.63 12.566 373.49%

PAGE 97

97 Table C-3. Croissant Park Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 553.63 1.24 6.84 1.499 11.33 Half mile network adjusted 1610.55 3.65 8.09 1.444 0.26 2.30% Half mile network 1610.55 3.65 8.09 1.444 0.26 2.30% Half mile crow adjusted 1363.86 3.16 8.13 1.750 0.79 6.93% Half mile crow 1363.86 3.16 8.13 1.750 0.79 6.93% One mile network adjusted 1400.55 2.97 7.16 1.548 1.45 12.80% One mile network 1387.93 3.02 7.32 1.550 1.49 13.11% One mile crow adjusted 1365.51 2.82 6.91 1.525 2.66 23.50% One mile crow 1298.17 2.90 7.49 1.555 3.14 27.72% Two mile network adjusted 1211.55 2.53 6.70 1.474 4.50 39.69% Two mile network 1160.42 2.55 7.13 1.505 5.62 49.58% Two mile crow adjusted 819.70 1.85 7.02 1.497 7.55 66.61% Two mile crow 933.32 2.22 7.02 1.582 12.57 110.88%

PAGE 98

98 Table C-4. Dillard Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1705.40 3.10 6.10 1.83 1.264 Half mile network adjusted 1703.70 2.67 4.94 1.71 0.173 13.66% Half mile network 1703.70 2.67 4.94 1.71 0.173 13.66% Half mile crow adjusted 1753.94 3.44 7.24 1.92 0.601 47.56% Half mile crow 1824.85 3.38 6.09 2.42 0.785 62.14% One mile network adjusted 1926.75 3.75 6.96 1.89 0.749 59.27% One mile network 1693.40 3.25 6.91 1.88 0.886 70.10% One mile crow adjusted 1721.08 3.13 6.11 1.83 1.250 98.95% One mile crow 1809.74 3.16 5.99 1.99 3.141 248.60% Two mile network adjusted 1705.40 3.10 6.10 1.83 1.264 100.00% Two mile network 1666.94 3.10 6.31 1.83 5.457 431.83% Two mile crow adjusted 1705.40 3.10 6.10 1.83 1.264 100.00% Two mile crow 1527.71 3.16 6.61 1.71 12.566 994.42%

PAGE 99

99 Table C-5. Floranada Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1579.74 3.50 7.37 1.41 1.621 Half mile network adjusted 1387.20 3.46 8.10 1.52 0.270 16.63% Half mile network 1373.15 3.42 8.10 1.52 0.272 16.80% Half mile crow adjusted 1536.22 3.62 7.92 1.50 0.595 36.70% Half mile crow 1165.20 3.33 9.09 1.50 0.785 48.44% One mile network adjusted 1671.37 3.76 7.48 1.42 1.171 72.26% One mile network 1403.56 3.43 7.99 1.46 1.482 91.41% One mile crow adjusted 1598.32 3.58 7.44 1.41 1.554 95.83% One mile crow 1656.62 3.38 7.44 1.83 3.141 193.77% Two mile network adjusted 1592.26 3.53 7.37 1.41 1.608 99.21% Two mile network 1654.92 3.22 6.95 1.67 6.769 417.54% Two mile crow adjusted 1579.74 3.50 7.37 1.41 1.621 100.00% Two mile crow 1334.01 2.72 6.73 1.57 12.566 775.12%

PAGE 100

100 Table C-6. Stephen Foster Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 804.67 1.52 5.01 1.49 3.692 Half mile network adjusted 2351.91 3.70 5.33 1.30 0.475 12.87% Half mile network 2351.91 3.70 5.33 1.30 0.475 12.87% Half mile crow adjusted 2297.29 3.62 5.26 1.33 0.784 21.24% Half mile crow 2297.30 3.62 5.26 1.33 0.785 21.27% One mile network adjusted 2041.86 3.42 5.33 1.44 1.301 35.23% One mile network 2019.76 3.56 5.59 1.44 1.442 39.06% One mile crow adjusted 1480.45 2.74 5.36 1.48 1.985 53.75% One mile crow 1561.44 2.93 5.62 1.49 3.141 85.08% Two mile network adjusted 1668.33 3.08 5.36 1.48 1.760 47.66% Two mile network 1755.10 3.16 5.42 1.44 4.776 129.36% Two mile crow adjusted 879.56 1.62 5.04 1.49 3.360 90.99% Two mile crow 1019.99 1.94 5.32 1.50 12.566 340.33%

PAGE 101

101 Table C-7. Harbordale Elementary Sc hool walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 820.50 1.86 5.83 2.11 4.713 Half mile network adjusted 1063.10 3.65 12.44 1.44 0.385 8.16% Half mile network 1028.85 3.61 12.41 1.44 0.443 9.40% Half mile crow adjusted 1051.38 3.09 10.31 1.46 0.603 12.79% Half mile crow 962.73 2.98 10.67 1.45 0.785 16.66% One mile network adjusted 1226.27 2.89 7.85 1.41 1.051 22.30% One mile network 1046.02 2.72 8.65 1.40 1.622 34.42% One mile crow adjusted 908.60 2.04 6.90 1.45 1.752 37.18% One mile crow 905.98 2.19 7.82 1.43 3.141 66.65% Two mile network adjusted 1039.28 2.23 6.19 1.98 2.004 42.53% Two mile network 1085.74 2.33 6.74 1.54 5.962 126.50% Two mile crow adjusted 870.16 1.77 5.33 2.15 3.979 84.42% Two mile crow 939.61 2.17 6.93 1.60 12.566 266.62%

PAGE 102

102 Table C-8. Lauderdale Manors Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1636.12 2.76 5.16 1.46 1.444 Half mile network adjusted 2409.04 3.79 4.71 1.35 0.410 28.37% Half mile network 2408.75 3.79 4.72 1.34 0.411 28.49% Half mile crow adjusted 2330.62 3.65 4.69 1.47 0.742 51.37% Half mile crow 2288.38 3.64 4.83 1.46 0.785 54.37% One mile network adjusted 2220.57 3.66 5.00 1.46 0.947 65.57% One mile network 2214.03 4.58 6.56 1.38 1.581 109.49% One mile crow adjusted 1846.93 3.11 5.16 1.46 1.279 88.59% One mile crow 1779.50 3.78 6.94 1.43 3.141 217.50% Two mile network adjusted 1988.37 3.35 5.16 1.46 1.188 82.28% Two mile network 1711.08 3.98 7.45 1.37 6.513 450.98% Two mile crow adjusted 1636.12 2.76 5.16 1.46 1.444 100.00% Two mile crow 1510.84 3.30 7.08 1.39 12.566 870.05%

PAGE 103

103 Table C-9. Thurgood Marshall Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 2367.21 5.12 8.01 1.19 0.605 Half mile network adjusted 2739.83 5.29 7.42 1.18 0.207 34.21% Half mile network 2417.64 4.60 6.76 1.31 0.463 76.58% Half mile crow adjusted 2803.82 5.42 7.48 1.19 0.259 42.80% Half mile crow 2218.35 4.33 6.77 1.35 0.785 129.81% One mile network adjusted 2641.71 5.28 7.68 1.19 0.533 88.17% One mile network 2004.47 4.43 7.46 1.30 1.910 315.69% One mile crow adjusted 2369.59 5.12 8.01 1.19 0.604 99.90% One mile crow 1909.70 4.59 7.91 1.33 3.141 519.29% Two mile network adjusted 2367.21 5.12 8.01 1.19 0.605 100.00% Two mile network 1733.75 4.29 8.00 1.32 6.979 1153.60% Two mile crow adjusted 2367.21 5.12 8.01 1.19 0.605 100.00% Two mile crow 1610.16 3.69 7.58 1.34 12.566 2077.24%

PAGE 104

104 Table C-10. North Fork Elementary Sc hool walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1301.56 3.45 8.34 1.60 1.477 Half mile network adjusted 1484.03 4.71 9.62 1.33 0.299 20.20% Half mile network 1539.67 5.05 10.32 1.30 0.355 24.00% Half mile crow adjusted 1581.48 4.02 8.33 1.60 0.655 44.34% Half mile crow 1559.97 4.28 9.09 1.53 0.785 53.15% One mile network adjusted 1605.02 4.19 8.57 1.54 0.875 59.21% One mile network 1730.58 4.83 9.37 1.40 1.472 99.65% One mile crow adjusted 1317.94 3.50 8.37 1.61 1.454 98.40% One mile crow 1486.95 4.29 8.63 1.51 3.141 212.62% Two mile network adjusted 1302.21 3.45 8.34 1.60 1.477 99.95% Two mile network 1561.44 3.72 7.71 1.40 6.983 472.62% Two mile crow adjusted 1301.56 3.45 8.34 1.60 1.477 100.00% Two mile crow 1707.09 3.59 6.95 1.41 12.566 850.51%

PAGE 105

105 Table C-11. North Side Elementary Sc hool walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1414.41 3.61 8.96 1.31 1.268 Half mile network adjusted 1686.88 3.64 7.66 1.19 0.402 31.71% Half mile network 1839.85 3.87 7.73 1.16 0.466 36.79% Half mile crow adjusted 1618.73 3.69 8.37 1.27 0.668 52.68% Half mile crow 1738.26 3.97 8.52 1.24 0.785 61.95% One mile network adjusted 1385.81 3.46 8.37 1.30 1.064 83.96% One mile network 1688.20 4.20 8.93 1.24 1.896 149.57% One mile crow adjusted 1405.24 3.59 9.00 1.31 1.263 99.64% One mile crow 1741.93 4.71 9.13 1.29 3.141 247.81% Two mile network adjusted 1414.41 3.61 8.96 1.31 1.268 100.00% Two mile network 1750.32 4.27 8.10 1.37 7.984 629.84% Two mile crow adjusted 1414.41 3.61 8.96 1.31 1.268 100.00% Two mile crow 1621.54 3.83 7.66 1.40 12.566 991.26%

PAGE 106

106 Table C-12. Riverland Elementary Sc hool walkability in dicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1509.26 2.60 4.93 1.44 1.427 Half mile network adjusted 1534.06 2.94 6.75 1.61 0.297 20.78% Half mile network 1545.32 3.08 6.96 1.48 0.403 28.20% Half mile crow adjusted 1604.97 3.09 6.38 1.53 0.625 43.79% Half mile crow 1650.39 3.19 6.53 1.45 0.785 55.02% One mile network adjusted 1742.08 3.06 5.17 1.45 1.028 72.04% One mile network 1847.60 3.31 5.59 1.38 1.550 108.61% One mile crow adjusted 1530.87 2.64 5.02 1.44 1.405 98.45% One mile crow 1738.11 3.39 6.08 1.45 3.141 220.11% Two mile network adjusted 1517.22 2.62 4.93 1.44 1.419 99.43% Two mile network 1682.50 3.20 5.88 1.39 6.370 446.35% Two mile crow adjusted 1509.26 2.60 4.93 1.44 1.427 100.00% Two mile crow 1596.79 3.17 6.20 1.42 12.566 880.46%

PAGE 107

107 Table C-13. Rock Island Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 986.84 1.86 5.03 1.33 1.945 Half mile network adjusted 681.55 1.26 5.22 1.42 0.227 11.70% Half mile network 1060.68 1.80 4.78 1.43 0.315 16.19% Half mile crow adjusted 666.35 1.38 5.96 1.39 0.387 19.91% Half mile crow 1446.64 2.40 5.06 1.67 0.785 40.38% One mile network adjusted 1407.59 2.44 5.47 1.28 0.700 35.99% One mile network 1880.80 3.23 5.47 1.46 1.456 74.89% One mile crow adjusted 1109.23 1.86 4.93 1.29 1.204 61.89% One mile crow 1479.31 2.46 5.18 1.49 3.141 161.54% Two mile network adjusted 1030.51 1.98 5.02 1.30 1.678 86.28% Two mile network 1581.45 2.82 5.73 1.41 6.200 318.83% Two mile crow adjusted 986.84 1.86 5.03 1.33 1.945 100.00% Two mile crow 1394.81 2.82 6.15 1.46 12.566 646.20%

PAGE 108

108 Table C-14. Sunland Park Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1885.51 6.36 11.30 1.58 0.534 Half mile network adjusted 1272.88 7.64 16.98 1.63 0.235 43.98% Half mile network 1367.94 5.77 12.83 1.63 0.365 68.30% Half mile crow adjusted 2032.49 7.41 12.68 1.60 0.417 78.03% Half mile crow 2009.50 5.52 9.21 1.59 0.785 147.03% One mile network adjusted 1929.26 6.51 11.30 1.58 0.522 97.73% One mile network 1985.51 4.64 7.70 1.45 1.706 319.41% One mile crow adjusted 1885.51 6.36 11.30 1.58 0.534 100.00% One mile crow 1879.77 4.75 8.02 1.43 3.141 588.19% Two mile network adjusted 1885.51 6.36 11.30 1.58 0.534 100.00% Two mile network 1683.12 3.95 7.78 1.37 6.869 1286.23% Two mile crow adjusted 1885.51 6.36 11.30 1.58 0.534 100.00% Two mile crow 1597.18 3.60 7.38 1.38 12.566 2352.84%

PAGE 109

109 Table C-15. Walker Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1672.31 5.18 9.87 1.19 1.878 Half mile network adjusted 1605.65 6.33 9.91 1.21 0.248 13.20% Half mile network 1713.72 6.72 10.61 1.23 0.470 25.04% Half mile crow adjusted 1596.06 5.70 9.10 1.26 0.298 15.85% Half mile crow 1492.48 5.64 10.31 1.28 0.785 41.81% One mile network adjusted 1510.56 7.10 10.72 1.31 0.457 24.36% One mile network 1498.52 5.35 10.64 1.28 1.806 96.14% One mile crow adjusted 1391.38 5.74 10.05 1.30 0.632 33.67% One mile crow 1567.80 4.51 8.95 1.34 3.141 167.25% Two mile network adjusted 1491.31 4.70 9.37 1.22 1.255 66.80% Two mile network 1624.23 3.91 7.92 1.29 7.540 401.45% Two mile crow adjusted 1678.33 5.02 9.57 1.20 1.631 86.83% Two mile crow 1691.81 3.81 7.59 1.31 12.566 669.02%

PAGE 110

110 Table C-16. Westwood Heights Elementary School walkability indicator values Pedestrian shed Residential parcel density Gross dwelling unit density Net dwelling unit density Pedestrian route directness Land area (square miles) Pedestrian shed coverage School attendance zone 1983.15 3.61 5.81 1.62 1.537 Half mile network adjusted 1999.42 3.38 5.90 1.76 0.218 14.19% Half mile network 1627.82 2.89 5.97 1.60 0.375 24.38% Half mile crow adjusted 2187.08 3.79 5.76 1.76 0.498 32.40% Half mile crow 1863.05 3.37 5.90 1.64 0.785 51.09% One mile network adjusted 2115.90 3.96 6.24 1.68 0.734 47.79% One mile network 1957.50 3.54 5.84 1.49 1.586 103.17% One mile crow adjusted 2095.96 3.73 5.69 1.66 1.240 80.71% One mile crow 1830.75 3.33 5.71 1.47 3.141 204.39% Two mile network adjusted 1986.46 3.62 5.81 1.62 1.534 99.83% Two mile network 1684.23 3.06 5.56 1.41 6.332 412.00% Two mile crow adjusted 1983.15 3.61 5.81 1.62 1.537 100.00% Two mile crow 1550.39 3.06 6.11 1.43 12.566 817.58%

PAGE 111

111 LIST OF REFERENCES Angel, S. (1968). Discouraging crim e through city planning (Working Paper 75). Berkeley, CA: University of California. Armitage, R. (2007). Sustainability versus sa fety: Confusion, conflict and contradiction in designing out crime. In G. Farrell, K. Bowers, S. Johnson and M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime prevention: Essays in honour of Ken Pease Crime Prevention Studies, 21, 81-110. Monsey, New York and Cullompton, Devon, UK: Criminal Justice Press and Willan Publishing. Atlas, R. (2008). 21st century security and CPTED: Designi ng for critical infrastructure protection and crime prevention Boca Raton: CRC Press. Bejleri, I., Steiner, R. L., Provost, R. E., Fischman, A., Arafat, A. A. (forthcoming). Understanding and mapping elements of urban fo rm that affect childrens ability to walk and bicycle to school: Case study of two Tampa Bay counties. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Bevis, C., & Nutter, J. (1977). Changing street layouts to re duce residential burglary Atlanta, GA: American Society of Criminology. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1998) Environmental criminology: From theory to urban planning practice. Studies on crime and crime prevention, 7 (1), 31-60. City of Raleigh, NC. (2008). Design guidelines for pedestri an-friendly neighborhood schools. Retrieved from http://www.raleighnc.gov/publ ications/Planning/Guides ,_Handbooks_and_Manuals/Schoo l_Design_Guidelines.pdfhttp://www.raleighnc .gov/publications/Pla nning/Guides,_Handbo oks_and_Manuals/School_Design_Guidelines.pdf Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Situa tional crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston. Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU). (2000). Charter of the New Urbanism New York: McGraw-Hill. Cozens, P., & Hillier, D. (2008). The shape of th ings to come: New Urbanism, the grid and the cul-de-sac. International Planning Studies 13(1), 51-73. Cozens, P. (2008a). Crime prevention through environmental design. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (153-177). Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. Cozens, P. (2008b). New Urbanism, crime and the suburbs: A review of the evidence. Urban Policy and Research, 26 (4), 429-444.

PAGE 112

112 Cozens, P. M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005) Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23 (5), 328-356. Crowe, T. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design (2nd ed.). Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Crowe, T. D. (1991). Crime prevention through environmental design Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Dill, J. (2004). Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Transportation Re search Board, Washington, DC, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.enhancements.org/download/trb/trb2004/TRB2004-001550.pdf Ellis, C. (20 02). The New Urbanism: Critiques and rebuttals. Journal of Urban Design, 7 (3), 261-291. Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances. (2009). Section 47-25. Fort Lauderdale Police Department. (n.d.). Statistics Gateway. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://ci.ftlaud.fl.us /police/stats.htm l Frank, L. D., Schmid, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Ch apman, J., & Saelens, B. E. (2005). Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28 (2S2), 117-125. Fulton, W. (1996). The New Urbanism: Hope or hype for American communities? Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Greenberg, S. W., & Rohe, W. M. (1984). Neighborhood design and crime: A test of two perspectives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50 (1), 48-61. Greenberg, S. W., Rohe, W. M., & Williams, J. R. (1982). Safety in urban neighborhoods: A comparison of physical characteristics and in formal territorial c ontrol in high and low crime neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 5 (3), 141-165. Hillier, B. (1998). Against enclosure. In N. Teymur, T. A. Markus, & T. Wooley (Eds.), Rehumanizing Housing (63-88). London: Butterworths. Hillier, B. (2004). Can streets be made safe? Urban Design International, 9 (1), 31-45. Hillier, B., & Shu, S. (1999, Apr il). Designing for secure spaces. Planning in London, 29 36-38. Hillier, B., & Shu, S. (2000a). Crime and urban la yout: The need for evidence. In S. Ballintyne, K. Pease, & V. McLaren (Eds.), Secure foundations: K ey issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety (224-248). London: Institute of Public Policy Research. Hillier, B., & Shu, S. (2000b). Do burglars unde rstand defensible space? Retrieved from http://www.spacesyntax.org/

PAGE 113

113 Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books. Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Katz, P. (1994). The New Urbanism: Toward an architecture of community New York: McGraw-Hill. Kelly, E. D., & Becker, B. (2000). Community planning: An introduction to the comprehensive plan. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kitchen, T. (2005). New Urbanism and CPTED in the British planning system: Some critical reflections. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 22 (4), 342-357. Knowles, P. (2003). The cost of policing New Urbanism. Community Safety Journal, 2 (4), 3337. Mayhew, P. (1979). Defensible space: The cu rrent status of crime prevention theory. The Howard Journal, 18 150-159. Nasar, J. L. (1981). Environmenta l factors and commercial burglary. Environmental systems, 11(1), 49-56. National Clearinghouse for Edu cational Facilities. (2009). NCEF Safe School Facilities Checklist Retrieved June 2, 2009, from http://www.edfacilities .org/checklist/index.cfm Newm an, O. (1972). Defensible spaces: Crime prevention through urban design New York: Macmillan. Rengert, G., & Hakim, S. (1998). Burglary in a ffluent communities: A planning perspective. In M. Felson and R. B. Pesier (Eds.), Reducing crime through real estate development and management (39-52). Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Rudlin, D., & Falk, N. (1995). 21st century homes: Building to last. London: URBED. Schneider, R. H., & Kitchen, T. (2007). Crime prevention and the built environment Abingdon, Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge. Schneider, T., Walker, H., & Sprague, J. (2000). Safe school design: A handbook for educational leaders applying the principles of crime prevention through environmental design. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Education Mana gement. (ERIC Docu ment Reproduction Service No. ED449541). Steiner, R. L., Bejleri, I., Wheelock, J. L., Bo les, G., Cahill, M., & Perez, B. O. (2008). Understanding and mapping institutional impedime nts to walking and bicycling to school: A case study of Hillsborough County, Florida. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2074, 3-11.

PAGE 114

114 Steuteville, R. (2003, November 3). Ne w Urbanism does not promote crime. New Urban News Retrieved from http://www.planetizen.com/node/107 Talen, E. (1999). Sense of comm unity and neig hbourhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of New Urbanism. Urban Studies, 36 (8), 1361-1379. Talen, E. (2002). The social goals of New Urbanism. Housing Policy Debate, 13 (1), 165-188. Town, S., & OToole, R. (2005, February). Crime-friendly neighbourhoods: How New Urbanist planners sacrifice safety in th e name of openness and accessibility. Reason, 36(9), 30-36. University of Florida School of Architecture. (2003). Florida safe school design guidelines: Strategies to enhance security and reduce vandalism Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education. Virginia Crime Prevention Association. (2005). CPTED guidelines Safety by design: Creating a safer environment in Virginia Richmond, VA: Virginia Cr ime Prevention Association. Retrieved from http://www.alexecon.org/pdf_docs/BRA C/VCPA%20CPTE D%20Guidelines.pdf Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. A. (2002). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Transaction. Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982, March). Broken windows. The Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29. Yang, X. (2006). Exploring the influence of envir onmental features on resi dential burglary using spatial-temporal pattern analys is. Ph.D. dissertation. Gainesville FL: University of Florida.

PAGE 115

115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Allison Fis chman grew up in Sarasota, Florida before moving to Gainesville to attend the University of Florida in 2003. She graduated in 2007 with a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in linguistics with minors in French and teaching E nglish as a second language. During her time as a graduate student, Allison worked as a research assistant to Drs. Ruth Steiner and Ilir Bejleri in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and al so as an intern with the Conservation Clinic at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. She will enroll at the University of Florida Levin College of Law in August 2009 with plans to study environmental and land use law.