|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING CUES CONTRIBUTING TO RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY RATES: A CASE STUDY OF SELECTED GAINESVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY DEVELOPMENTS By MISTY M.J. MARTIN 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
2 2009 Misty Marie Jacquin Martin
3 To my husband, my parents, and my family thank you for always believing in me
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the f ollowing people for their contributions to my research. My thesis committee consisted of Richard Schneider (Chair) and Ruth Steiner (Co-chair). I would like to thank Dr. Richard Schneider for contributing time, ener gy, and intellectual though ts throughout my topic selection and thesis research. Th rough this process, you have provided insight, not only into my thesis, but also into my future career goals. I would also like to thank Dr. Ruth Steiner for the knowledge she has shared with me over the years. A special thanks is due to a ll of the individuals at the Ga inesville Police Department who allowed me to intern within the Crime Analysis Unit and aided me in this process. I thank Corporal Jaime Kurnick and Ericka Jackson for allowing me to become a part of the Crime Analysis Unit. Thank you to the crime prevention officers, especially Officer Ernest Graham, for your accompaniment to the selected developments and for assisting with light measurement readings. I want to also thank Ms. Bernade tte Woody, Deputy Director of the Gainesville Housing Authority, and Mr. John Gi lreath, GIS Specialist of the Public Works Department, who both contributed time and informa tion to our research process. Most importantly, I would like to thank my family and friends for all of your love, trust, and support throughout my life and educational career. To Thaddeus, you have been so patient as I have pursued my educational dreams. Thank you for escorting me on my spontaneous trips through the public housing developments and showing me that there was an end to all of the madness. To Mom, thank you for always pushing me to my full capabilities. Because of you, I have not only been able to earn a great educa tion, but I have had so much fun along the way. And to the rest of my family, I would have b een incapable of completing my goals without your assistance, encouragement, and understanding. I love and thank all of you more than I can ever begin to express.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ 11 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................12 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .14 Residential Burglary Recording Tools................................................................................... 16 Burglary and the Community................................................................................................. 17 The Case Study.......................................................................................................................18 Research Organization............................................................................................................19 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................21 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........21 What is Residential Burglary?................................................................................................21 Basic Theories about the Built Environment and Crime........................................................ 23 Defensible Space............................................................................................................. 24 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.......................................................... 28 Situational Crime Prevention.......................................................................................... 38 Environmental Criminology............................................................................................ 42 The Application of Geographic Inform ation System s in Crime Analysis.............................. 43 Summary.................................................................................................................................44 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 55 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........55 Topic Selection.......................................................................................................................56 Selection of Case Studies........................................................................................................57 Mapping the Study Area..................................................................................................57 Physical Address Verification ......................................................................................... 58 Selection of Case Reports ................................................................................................59 Development of Case Study...................................................................................................62 Mapping Analysis............................................................................................................ 62 Meetings & Informal Interviews with Key Informants................................................... 62 Observation.................................................................................................................... ..64
6 Review of Documents.....................................................................................................66 Analysis of Case Study...........................................................................................................67 Summary.................................................................................................................................70 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION........................................................................................... 77 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........77 Evaluation of Victimized Developments................................................................................ 78 Residential Burglaries in our Study Developm ents......................................................... 79 The Pine Meadows Development....................................................................................79 The Woodland Park Development.................................................................................. 87 The Caroline Manor Development.................................................................................. 98 Comparing the Residential Burglaries.................................................................................. 102 The Pine Meadows Buffer.............................................................................................102 The Woodland Park Buffer........................................................................................... 104 Residential Burglaries of Tree Tra il Low-Income Housing Developm ent................... 105 Discussion of Findings......................................................................................................... 106 Lighting and Landscaping Cues Pertaining to Residential Burglaries .......................... 106 Victimized Residences within Buffers.......................................................................... 109 The Tree Trail Complex................................................................................................ 110 Comparing Gainesville Housi ng Authority Developm ents........................................... 110 Summary of the Discussion..................................................................................................111 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................159 Crime and the Physical Environment...................................................................................159 Limitations of our Research..................................................................................................16 0 Recommendations for Future Research................................................................................102 Recommendations Gathered from our Research.................................................................. 106 Conclusions...........................................................................................................................111 APPENDIX A CITY OF GAINESVILLE CODE OF OR DINANCES PERTAINI NG TO LIGHTI NG...167 B U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND UR BAN DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC HOUSING MODERNIZATION STANDARDS HANDBOOK.........................................170 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................171 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................177
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Reported Burglary Occurrences and Rate of Yearly Change per 100,000 Inhabitants .....20 2-1 Comparison of Defensible Space Principles and CPTED Strategies.................................46 2-2 Conclusions Relating Improve d Street Lighting and Crim e..............................................46 2-3 How Improved Lighting Could Affect Crime...................................................................47 2-4 Eight Street Lighting Eval uations in the United S tates.....................................................48 2-5 Three Street Lighting Eval uations in the United Kingdom ...............................................49 2-6 Causal Links between St reet lighting and Crim e...............................................................50 2-7 Routine Activity and Rational Choice; Com paring and Contrasting the Approaches.......51 2-8 Findings Relating Landscaping and Crim e and Fear of Crime..........................................52 2-9 Defining Criminal-Mappi ng Trends and Patterns..............................................................53 3-1 Gainesville Housing Authority De velopm ent Description A (May 2009)........................72 3-2 Gainesville Housing Authority De velopm ent Description B (May 2009)........................73 4-1 Calculated Burglary Crime Rates between January 1, 2006 and Decem ber 31, 2008....113 4-2 Reported Residential Burglaries by Year and Developm ent...........................................114 4-3 Selected Residential Burglaries Incidences in S tudy Developments...............................115 4-4 Landscape Survey Completed in Pine Meadows............................................................116 4-5 Lighting Survey Comple ted in Pine Meadows ................................................................117 4-6 Landscape Survey Completed in Woodland Park...........................................................118 4-7 Lighting Survey Comp leted in W oodland Park...............................................................120 4-8 Landscape Survey Completed in Caroline Manor...........................................................122 4-9 Lighting Survey Completed in Caroline Manor..............................................................123 4-10 Additional Light Measurements Taken in Each Developm ent........................................124 4-11 Summary of Study Development Lighting and Landscaping F indings...........................125
8 A-1 City of Gainesville Code of Or dinances Pertaining to Lighting ......................................167 B-1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developm ent Public Housing Modernization Standards Handbook........................................................................................................170
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Twenty-five Techniques of Situational Prevention ...........................................................54 3-1 City-wide Reported Residentia l Burglaries between 2006 and 2008 ...............................74 3-2 Gainesville Housing Authority Proper ties Extracted from the Alachua County Property Appraisers Parcels..............................................................................................75 3-3 Residential Burglary Occurrences in Ga inesville Housing Developm ent Properties........76 4-1 Alachua County, Florida..................................................................................................126 4-2 Gainesville, Florida....................................................................................................... ...127 4-3 Properties managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority.............................................128 4-4 Selected Gainesville Housing Authority Study Developm ents.......................................129 4-5 Location of the Pine Meadows Development..................................................................130 4-6 Pine Meadows Victimized Units.....................................................................................131 4-7 Points of Entry in Pine Meadows Victimized Units........................................................132 4-8 Non-Structural Wall at the Ma in Entry Of the Residences..............................................133 4-9 Example of Landscaping Observed in Pine Meadows....................................................134 4-10 Fencing In Proximity to Unit E........................................................................................135 4-11 Location of Light Fixtures within the Pine Meadows Developm ent...............................136 4-12 Locations where Additional Light Measur em ents were taken at Pine Meadows............137 4-13 Location of the Woodland Park Development.................................................................138 4-14 Woodland Park Victimized Units....................................................................................139 4-15 Points of Entry in Woodland Park Victimized Units.......................................................140 4-16 Landscaping between Unit A and Williston Road...........................................................141 4-17 Opening in Fence Separating Victimized Unit B and Williston Road............................142 4-18 Landscaping in the Vicinity of Unit D.............................................................................143
10 4-19 Landscaping in the Vicinity of Unit K.............................................................................143 4-20 Location of Light Fixtures within the W oodland Park Development..............................144 4-21 Cobra Head Light Fixture................................................................................................145 4-22 Mercury-Vapor Fixture....................................................................................................145 4-23 Lighting Quality Directly Beneath a Street Light Fi xture in E vening Hours..................146 4-24 Locations where Additional Light Measur em ents were taken at Woodland Park...........147 4-25 Location of the Caroline Manor Development................................................................148 4-26 Points of Entry in Caroline Manor Victimized Units......................................................149 4-27 Half-Wall located at the North and South Ends of Each Unit in the Caroline Manor Developm ent.................................................................................................................... 150 4-28 Location of Light Fixtures within the Caroline Manor Developm ent.............................151 4-29 Locations where Additional Light Measur em ents were taken at Caroline Manor..........152 4-30 Residential Burglaries that Occurred w ithin th e Two-Block Buffer around Caroline Manor and Pine Meadows...............................................................................................153 4-31 Land Uses within the Two-Block Buffer around Caroline Manor and Pine Meadows ...154 4-32 Residential Burglaries that Occurred w ithin the Two-Block Buffer around W oodland Park..................................................................................................................................155 4-33 Land Uses within the Two-Block Buffer around Woodland Park...................................156 4-34 Examples of Landscaping for Beautification Purposes...................................................157 4-35 Tree Trail Apartments & Burglaries................................................................................158
11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BCS: British Crime Survey CPTED: Crime Prevention thr ough Environmental Design FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigations FGDL: Federal Geographic Database Library GHA: Gainesville Housing Authority GIS: Geographic Information Systems GPD: Gainesville Police Department GRU: Gainesville Regional Utilities IESNA: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey NIBRS: National Incident-Based Reporting System POE: Point of Entry RMS: Records Management System UCR: Uniform Crime Reports
12 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 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING CUES CONTRIBUTING TO RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY RATES: A CASE STUDY OF SELECTED GAINESVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY DEVELOPMENTS By Misty M.J. Martin December 2009 Chair: Richard Schneider Co-chair: Ruth Steiner Major: Urban and Regional Planning The objective of the present study is to explore residential burg laries, and the contributions of lighting and landscaping cues relative to their occurrences. We employed Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to locate low-income housing developments in Gainesville, Florida (managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority) and map the occurrences of residential burglaries. Throughout the analysis of the burglar y occurrences, we focused on the basic placebased crime prevention techniques, examining th e possibility of succe ssfully promoting or discouraging criminal acts of residential burglary with lighti ng and landscaping elements. We hypothesized that lighting and landscape maintenan ce directly affected th e reported occurrences of residential burglaries within our select GHA developments. We identified select reported incidences in Pine Meadows, Woodland Park, and Caroline Manor, thre e of the Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA) developments, and conducted landscaping and lighting surveys within proximity of the point of entry for each victim ized unit to determine if landscaping or lighting environmental cues played any role within the reported incidence a nd predators target selection. We found that lighting levels in our study developments to be minimal at the points of entry and
13 landscaping often to be overgrow n, contributing to opportunities of cover for potential offenders. The results of our analysis suggest that lighti ng and landscaping play a role in the amount of surveillability, which plays a role in decrease d residential burglary opportunities. Through our research, we were unable to infe r a direct relationship between lighting and landscaping cues and the occurrences of reside ntial burglaries. Nevertheless, our st udies suggest that the residential burglary occurrences were more than random criminal acts.
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The inten t of this thesis is to explore the association (if any) between residential burglaries and environmental cues by using public housing deve lopments located in Ga inesville, Florida as a case study. The study utilizes Ge ographic Information Systems (GIS) to identify developments managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA) in Gainesville, Florida, which was estimated to have 114,375 residents in 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007), to determine locations of residential burglaries betw een January 2006 and December 2008. The study also examines the relationship between lighting and landscape cues and the occurrence of reported residential burglaries. Based on previous findings from researchers, we hypothesize that lighting and landscaping, which are specific environmental cues that influence the decision-making process, can promote or deter residential burglary by altering an offenders perception of risk. Residential burglaries are one of the most numerous and mo st serious property crimes reported worldwide (UN-HABITAT, 2007), affecting not only individuals, but also entire neighborhoods and districts. In studies conducted by R.I. Mawby (2001), 54% of victim respondents claimed to be very much affected by residential burglary. Th erefore, residential burglaries become a very important type of crime to study and analyze. Studies show that victims can suffer from excessive and enduring psychological effects, related to a deep sense of violation and insecurity (Hough, 1984; Wirtz & Harrell, 1987), including fear, anger, guilt, resentment, shame, grief, and shock (Cromwell and Bir zer, 2007; Mawby, 2001; Budd, 1999). Victims have also reported that they cried and had di fficulty sleeping (Mawby, 2001; Budd, 1999). Districts and neighborhoods that have fallen victim to residential burglaries are often associated with a negative stigma (UN-HABITAT, 2007). Exploring residential burglar ies is also important due to the financial losses endured as a result of re moval and damage to the property (Budd, 1999).
15 Property loss resulting from burgl aries was estimated to be $4.3 billion, or an average of $1,991 per offense, in 2007 (FBI, 2007). Public housing is housing that is subsidized by public funds for low-income individuals, (Public Housing, 2004). According to a st udy conducted by Rouse a nd Rubenstein, crime rates in public housing complexes are in some cases ten times higher than the national average for residential burgl aries(quoted in Bovard, 1994, p. 143). Numerous researcher findings suggest that public housing developments are typically site d in areas that are deprived financially, socially, and physica lly (Noelker & Harel, 1992). Furthermore, Lynch and Cantor (1992) found that socially disorganized communitie s were more criminogenic, and therefore had higher burglary victimization rates (Dekeseredy, 2003). Because public housing sites te nd to be socially disorgan ized, and therefore more criminogenic, there is a need to study and anal yze residential burglaries within a public housing development setting. We selected two GHA public housing properties for the case study, taking into consideration the rate of residential burglary occurrence and the potential for victimization based on environmental cues, or signals. While the average public housin g development is more criminogenic, resulting in high rates of resident ial burglary, the GHA developments have become an exception to the rule, accordi ng to the GHA Deputy Executive Director, and confirmed by data retrieved from GPDs Reco rds Management System (RMS). Residential burglaries have occurred with a minimal number of reported incidences within the GHA public housing developments. Therefore, we have selected GHA developments that reported higher incidences of residential burglary within our selected timeframe, between 2006 and 2008. Once residential burglary patterns have been identified within the public housing development, the paper suggests connections betw een the residential burg laries and lighting and
16 landscape cues, which may have a bearing on the likelihood of resident ial burglaries being committed. The results of this analysis provide recommendations that may be incorporated into future city planning ordinances or building codes. Residential Burglary Recording Tools Two tools that are useful when exam ining th e occurrence of reside ntial burglaries. The first tool used to examine statistics on all Part I offenses, or serious crimes by their nature and volume, is the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Pr ogram, which was conceived in response to the need for reliable and uniform crime statistics. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) requires that reported criminal occurrences be formatted based on the UCR guidelines. The most commonly requested UCR data is published ye arly and made available through the FBIs website. Approximately 17,000 law enforcement agencies voluntarily report yearly reported criminal statistics to the FBI. As previously mentioned, the UCR program collects statistics on a total of eight Part I offenses, which include : criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, lar ceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, a nd arson (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2004). Each reporting law enforcement agency cla ssifies and scores the offenses in their jurisdiction based on the UCR Handbook, reporting offenses according to handbook guidelines, rather than local or state stat utes. Some law enforcement agenci es are unable to submit annual UCR crime statistics due to several issues incl uding: computer problems, changes in record management systems or personnel shortages (FBI, n.d.). Currently, the UCR Program is being redesi gned as the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), a more comprehensiv e and detailed reporting system. The detailed information will be categorized and provided wi thin each of the twenty-two broad offense categories. While important to study the yearly statistical occurrences of residential burglary
17 through the UCR, there is a second tool that, so me would argue, is even more valuable to studying the occurrence of criminal activities. The second important tool is the National Cr ime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is an annual publication of the largest national forum for victims. The publication allows victims the opportunity to describe the im pact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2008). Th e study is a sample of nearly 76,000 victimized households, or 135,300 victimized individuals; however it is much more accurate when describing the direct personal effects of being a target. Information re garding criminal activiti es, whether reported or unreported, are collected through the national survey and dist ributed in a published forum. The NCVS indicates that property crime ra tes, including burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft, have steadily declined since surveys began in 1973. Between 2006 and 2007 burglaries decreased by .2%, re sulting in a total of 2,179,140 reported burgl aries nationwide, with 67.9% of those occurrences characterized as residential burglaries. Preliminary studies suggest that 2008 experienced an average decline in property crim es of 1.6%. However, cities with populations between 100,000 and 249,999 experien ced an increase of 3.1% for burglaries. By gathering data on reported criminal events and the emotional strain felt by the victimized individuals and households, the tw o tools, the UCR Program and the NCVS, provide a relatively comprehensive view of the crime problem affecting the United States. Burglary and the Community Burglary is defined as the unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or a theft (U.S. Dept. of Justice, n.d.). W e understand that reside ntial burglary, or breaking and entering of a residence, is a worldwide problem, not associ ated with a city of one particular size, although larger cities are typically affected by increased criminal statistics. Residential burglaries affect everyone. By selecting public hous ing developments within Gaines ville, Florida as a case study
18 and selecting residential burglaries between January 2006 and December 2008 within GPDs RMS, a program that manages all of the reported incidences within the city, we intend to establish a better understanding of the residential burglary incident and observe the effects of lighting and landscape cues on re sidential burglary rates within our selected public housing developments. In 2008, the Gainesville Police Department (G PD) reported to the FBI that burglaries, which included residential, commercial and bur glary of a structure, decreased by 141 total offenses, or 9.27%, from the previous year (GPD, 2008). Table 1-1 shows the number of reported burglary occurrences as well as the change in the rate of occurrence at various scales for burglaries between 2006 and 2008.So far this year crime in Florida has decreased by 7.9%, while the citys crime rates have increased by 10%. We are aware that the burglary occurrences reported to the FBI are not all of the occurrences within the citys RMS program. GPDs RMS data is classified differently than the statistics collected via the FBIs UCR program While both GPD and the FBI track all reported burglary occurrences, the UCR cla ssifies only residential, commer cial burglaries and burglaries of a structure. Conveyance, or car, burglaries are classified as larce ny-theft (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2004). Therefore, GPD mu st report data to the FBI acco rding to the UCR classification guidelines. The Case Study This thesis, using a case st udy approach, begins by m apping the reported residential burglary occurrences based on data collected fr om GPDs RMS. We also map the public housing developments within the city limits, mana ged by the GHA. By mapping and comparing the location of the housing developments and the occurre nce of residential burglaries, we are able to determine which developments e xperienced higher residential bur glary occurrence rates between
19 January 2006 and December 2008. Secondly, the rese arch tests our hypothes is that selected environmental variables, which may be physical elements or cues (or possibly both), are statistically significant and that th ere are particular factors associat ed with increased or decreased residential burglary rates. Speci fically, we suggest that the loca tion and maintenance of lighting and landscape become key aspects of the place-based crime prevention theories by minimizing visual barriers, creating territorial physical barr iers, and illuminating areas without spotlighting any particular individuals (Gardner, 1995), ther eby increasing surveilla nce opportunities in an attempt to reduce the risk and occurrence of re sidential burglary. Finall y, this thesis includes recommendations to the governing ordina nces for the City Commission, providing environmental design and building guidelines, rela ted to lighting and land scape issues, to deter future residential burglaries. Research Organization This document consists of five chapters. Th e research and justif ication of com pleted research is introduced in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 di scusses the literature pertaining to residential burglary, while focusing exclusively on the exploration of the place-based crime prevention theories, which are often used to design interventions that seek to minimize criminal problems, and how environmental cues play a role in th e occurrence of residential burglary. We also discuss the development of GIS through environm ental criminology, a tool currently used to study various criminal occurren ces, including residential burgla ry. The methodology used in the study is described in Chapter 3. The findings of our research are examined and discussed in Chapter 4. The paper concludes in Chapter 5 with recommendations to the City of Gainesvilles governing ordinances along with recomm endations for further research.
20 Table 1-1. Reported Burglary Occurrences and Rate of Yearly Change per 100,000 Inhabitants 2006 Crimes 2006 Crime Rate* 2007 Crimes 2007 Crime Rate* 2006 2007 Rate of Change 2008 Crimes 2008 Crime Rate* 2007 2008 Rate of Change United States 2,183,746 729.4 2,179,140 722.5 0.95% 2,222,196 730.8 + 1.16 % Florida 170,873944.6181,833996.3+ 5.47%188,4671028.3+ 3.21% Gainesville 1,420 1290.8 1,522 1405.5 + 8.89% 1382 1036.9 26.22% Gainesville Housing Authority1 221115.3241216.7+ 9.09%18912.525.00% Caroline Manor 2 3174.6 3 4761.9 + 50.00% 1 1587.3 66.67% Pine Meadows 31666.763333.3+ 100.00%31666.750.00% Woodland Park 7 1830.1 6 1568.6 14.29% 6 1568.6 0.00% Source: FBI UCR, 2006, 2007, 2008, and GPD RMS data. Crime Rates are per 100,000 inhabitants. Note: Population for the Gainesville Hous ing Authority was calculated by multiplyin g the average household size, which is 2.25 people per household, according to the 2000 Census, by the number of units in housing developments managed by the GHA, excluding Section 8 housing certificates and vouchers. 1 The reported incidences within the GHA Public Housing Developm ents are only incidences of reported residential burglary due to the GHA not managing any commercial properties. The reported numbers from the United States Florida, and Gainesville are based on the FBIs UCR reporte d guidelines, and therefore include both residential and commercial burglaries.
21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The intent of Chapter 2 is to provide a review of the literature pe rtaining to residential burglary and the CPTED theories, specifically the development of the theories into applicable tools, which are currently utilized to intervene in the occurrences of criminal activity, including residential burglary. The followi ng chapter begins with a discu ssion of residential burglary. Next, we discuss the basic CPTED theories, whic h are used to explain the occurrences of and then minimize criminal activity, such as resident ial burglary. We explor e how specific built and natural environmental cues can dire ctly affect the rates of residen tial burglaries. Finally, we turn our review of the literature to the developmen t of GIS, a tool used with many purposes and employed by several types of occupations, explori ng its use in daily crime analysis within the law enforcement setting. What is Residential Burglary? Residential burglary, defined as an unlawful entry of a structure to commit a felony or theft, (FBI, 2007) is a P art 1 property crime cons idered to be one of the most common crimes worldwide, accounting for 22.1% of the estimated 2007 United States property crimes and 67.9% of all the burglaries reported (FBI, 2007). Definitions for the term burglary vary worldwide, however essential elements of burglary include breaking and entering or the intention of breaking (Yang, 2006). Burglaries are not considered to be persona l or contact crimes, such as robberies or assaults; however, they do become very personal to the victim. Unknown persons have the opportunity to rummage through th e victims personal belongings which often causes emotional pain. A victims anguish can be life altering, cau sing feelings of extrem e vulnerability for the
22 lifetime of that individual. As victims of residential breaking and en tering, we understand the deep sense of personal violation. The knowledge alone of an intruder s presence within a persons residence, even without the removal of items, can cause si gnificant distress for a victim. For example, the author felt extreme fear of a re peat victimization after becoming the target of a residential burglary. Due to the life-changing phobia, we felt the need to have an alarm system installed.1 This thesis focuses on residential burglary due to the personal nature of the crime, as well as the relationship between environmental elements and behaviors, particularly because it is the most common property crime connected to loca l built environmental and design features (UNHABITAT, 2007). Brantingham and Brantingham ( 1976) discuss the importance of studying residential burglary. They say that burglary should: exhibit a spatial distribu tion related to land-use pa tterning because it is a crime against real property It is by fa r the most frequently occurring of the seven serious crimes included in the Uniform Crime Reports It also appears to be the crime most feared and resented by the American Public Finally, burglary is a crime which police have remarkably little success in solving and therefore a crime for wh ich small preventative gains through prevention planning can pay large real world dividends. (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1976, p. 275) Numerous studies show that the time of day correlates to the occurrence of residential burglary, whether successful or unsuccessful, although the preferred time of day for offenders has changed over the years. OBlock, Donnerm eyer, and Doeren (1991) found that burglaries were as likely to occur during the day as at night. According to the 1998 British Crime Survey (BCS) (quoted in Budd, 1999), burglary risk is the same for weekends and weekdays. While they 1 The author became a victim of residential burglary in 2003. The offender entered the residence by kicking in a side door to the garage. No items were removed or appeared to be disturbed during the incident. However, the author suffered from extreme anxiety, particul arly at night, and was often unable to sleep, because of fear of becoming a repeat target. Because of life-altering anxieties and phobias, the authors fa mily invested in a monitored alarm system.
23 claim that burglaries are less like ly to occur when it is dark due to the likelihood of the residence being occupied, their statistics (quoted in Budd, 1999) showed that 56% of the burglaries occurred while it was dark; with thirty-two per cent occurring in the evening, or between 6:00 pm and midnight. Although burglaries occur most often in the evening, they are often less successful because residences are more likely to be o ccupied by people. Findings from the 1998 BCS also determined that the successfulness of burglary occurrence varied dependi ng on the day of week, resulting in lower success during the weekends. C ontradictory to statistical findings from the 1998 BCS, data from the 2007 UCR Report indicated that residential burg laries occurred more often during the daytime, resulting in 63.6% of the total repo rted burglaries. Regardless of the time of day or day of week for the occurrence of a residential burglary, burglars often concern themselves with similar things, includi ng being seen or heard while carrying out a break-in, and whether it is easy to access and depart from targeted dwellings (DeFrances, 1993, p. 180). Therefore, it is important for residen tial structures to limit the opportunities that allow perpetrators to commit such acts. Theorists have identified the need to limit these opportunities, thus cr eating basic theories focusing on the built environment and the prevention of criminal activity. Basic Theories about the Built Environment and Crime Num erous researchers, including Jacobs ( 1961), Jeffery (1977), and Newman (1972), have studied the relationships between crime and th e built environment for over 40 years. Research tends to confirm a direct link between built enviro nment characteristics and crime, or fear of crime. Generally, physical environment feat ures influence human behavior, suggesting specifically that criminal behavi or can also be influenced by p hysical environmental attributes. To commit a crime, Stollard argues that perpet rators need basic elements including the ability, the opportunity, and a motive. The provision of building security through design... (seeks to)
24 eliminate or reduce the intruders ability and opportunity to commit a crime (Stollard, 1991, p. 7). Attempting to reduce crime, place-based cr ime prevention theories have been developed, suggesting measures for in tervention or prevention. Multiple disciplines have converged to develop a classical core of four interrelated placebased crime prevention techniques, including defensible space, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), situational cr ime prevention, and environmental criminology. The theories contain jointly shared concepts, a llowing planners and other agencies to create a cooperative-application comprise d of multiple theories. Every environment differs based on numerous factors, requiring the application of eac h theorys strategies to be context-sensitive, tailored to local physical, soci o-economic, legal, political, a nd cultural needs (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). To ensure contextsensitive application, a combina tion of theories is typically applied. Defensible Space In the 1960s and s, Oscar Newm an develope d the defensible space theory, a defining place-based crime prevention practice. Af ter observing crime within public housing developments, Newman hypothesized that projec t size and building height were factors contributing to elevated crime rates. He was in trigued by the correlation between crime rates and differently designed low-income projects sited di rectly adjacent to other large low-income projects. He suggested that territorial control, boundary marking, and su rveillability features could be designed within the built environment as a mean s to prevent or minimize criminal incidents. Ideally, intruders should be easily identifiable by residents in controlled spaces, decreasing the opportunity for users to become vulnerable to vi ctimization. Territorialit y, natural surveillance,
25 image, and milieu are the fundamental principl es of Newmans theory, intended to identify intruders. Territoriality. Territoriality is defined as the cap acity of the physical environment to create perceived zones of territorial infl uence (Newman, 1972, p. 78). Territorial zones influence design and subdivide property, for the pur pose of allowing residents to feel a sense of ownership of their space. Territorially sensit ive designs can encourag e a tenant to defend adjacent outdoor spaces by subdividing and identifying the physical space on their own (Yang, 2006). Newman also suggests that boundaries should be clearly defined to all users, ensuring delineation between public and private uses thro ugh the use of access control mechanisms, such as fencing, shrubbery or guards. When incorporated into the design, ac cess control mechanisms facilitate territorial impulses a nd behavior by impeding the actions of outsiders (strangers). When territories are properly de lineated, residents can begin to identify illegitimate users of the space because the residents are able to naturally surveil the area. Natural Surveillance. Although a controversial component natural surveillance is the second key principle in Newmans defensible space. A study by Bennett and Wright (1984) identified surveillability and o ccupancy to be the most influe ntial variables that burglary offenders considered in target selection. Defined as the capacity of physical design to provide surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents (N ewman, 1972, p. 78), it suggests that objects of the built environment should not impede on a persons ability to observe the space. It does not imply or guarantee assistance by a witness to the victimized or reporting by the witness to law enforcement agencies. However, it does al low the resident the opportunity to question and
26 report the actions of the intrude r. Through the placement of window s and entrances, interior and exterior spaces should be vi sible to rightful users. Image and Milieu Image and milieu are defined as the capacity of design to influence the perception of a projects uniqueness, isolation, and stigma (Newman, 1972, p. 102). Crowe (2000, p. 54) says that public housing communities ar e victims of community attitudes that can lead to their social unacceptabi lity. Schneider and Kitchen (2002) state that more recent planning and development in America attempts to implem ent sensitive designs, with the intention of alleviating the stigma of public housing. The application of defensible space should focus on the importance of appearances, ultimately affecti ng the stigma associated with public housing developments. Additionally, to promote sa fety between neighboring spaces, necessary consideration of the juxtaposition of land uses must be observed. Image and milieu foreshadowed the development of the Broken Windows Theory, which explains the relationship between crime and community order and disorder. The theory suggests that large amounts of criminal activity tend to bring about multitudes of small, discourteous acts of criminal mischief, suggesting a lack of concern by the community, resulting in continued disarray. Yang (2006, p. 28) suggests that neglect of the first attack on a building or person may imply to an offender that no one cares and that the attacks can continue with impunity, often resulting in re-victimization. Afte r victimization occurs, it is important for the user of the space to rehabilitate their space in order to mi nimize the opportunity for repeat occurrences. Access Control and Boundary Definition. Presently, defensible space also considers access control and boundary definition as supporti ng factors in defensible space theory. Brown and Altman (1981, quoted in Schneider & Kitche n, 2002, p. 97) suggest that territory is a boundary regulating mechanism f acilitating the protection of privacythrough a variety of
27 access control mechanisms. Boundary definition, or clearly delineating spaces in an attempt for people to decipher public and private use of a space, aids the territoriality principle of Newmans theory. Through the use of security guards, gates, key cards, landscapi ng, and other necessary access control devices, a space can obstruct the m ovements of intruders, thereby disclosing their presence to any near by residents (Yang, 2006). Environmental cues are important in all of the fundamental prin ciples of defensible space. Landscaping can contribute to defining the terr itoriality of a space, ensure proper natural surveillance, create a positive and attractive im age, and create boundary definitions thereby creating particular areas with access control. Outdoor ligh ting is also important to the fundamental principles of defensible space beca use it also provides an opportunity for both natural and electronic su rveillance to occur and attempts to portray a nice image for the space. Defensible Space and Public Housing. Focusing specifically on the built environment and crime, Newman made a comparison between adjacent housing projects, Pruitt-Igoe and Carr Square Village, with older neighborhoods in St. Louis, Missouri in the 1960s. Resident profiles were the only common factor between the two developments. Building designs, the occurrence of crime, and occupancy rates of the developments varied dramatically between them. Based on Le Corbusiers principles of desi gn, Pruitt-Igoe was intended to be an ideal public housing community for low-income familie s. However, numerous problems plagued the development from the beginning, including high rates of crime, segregation, and extreme poverty. The occupancy rate never rose above 60% within the 2870 unit high-rise public housing development, resulting in the sudden decay of th e project, and ultimately in its deconstruction less than 20 years later (Newman, 1997).
28 Carr Square Village, a sma ller-scaled row-house commun ity, effectively created connections between its occupants. Newman observed Carr Square Village as a fully occupied development, where residents had small yards th at they identified as their personal space, and routinely maintained. The development effectivel y displayed Newmans belief that proper design encouraged personal control and responsibility fo r space. Carr Square Village was a defensible space, occupied by legitimate users who cared to defend their space (Schneider & Kitchen, 2002). Defensible space theory has been implemen ted successfully in pub lic housing designs and by policy makers, and consequently has been ap plied in numerous sett ings, including Dayton, Ohio, Yonkers and the South Bronx, New York, and throughout the United Kingdom (Schneider and Kitchen, 2007). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Evolving at the sam e time as Newmans defensib le space, and significantly revised several years later to be similar in adaptation to Newm ans theory, C. Ray Jeffreys broad-based crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is defined as the proper design and effective use of the built environment that can lead to a re duction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life (NICP, n.d.) Jefferys initial CPTED model made the assumption that: The response [i.e., behavioral adaptation] of the individual organism to the physical environment is a product of the br ain; the brain in turn is a product of genetics and the environment. The environment never influences behavior directly, but only through the brain. Any model of crime prevention must include both the br ain and the physical environment. (Jeffery & Zahm 1993, p. 330) As Jeffrey and Zahm (1993) discussed, the CP TED model is concerne d with two critical elements: the physical environment and the individual organism. Based on reward and punishment stimulations, the theory aims to identify conditions of the physical and social
29 environment that provide opportunities for or pr ecipitate criminal acts and the alteration of those conditions so that no crimes occu r (Brantingham & Faust, 1976, p. 290). While originally almost a duplication of the defining principles of Newmans theory, Crowe (1997) has evolved the theory, now identifyi ng nine key strategies to CPTED. Even through the evolution of the theory, the core principles continue to be natural surveillance, acces s control, territorial reinforcement, and proper placement of land us es. Table 2-1 compares Newmans defensible space with Crowes CPTED strategies, derived fr om Jeffreys defining principles of CPTED. It is clear that some CPTED applications wo rk sometimes in some locations relative to some specific crimes (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007, pg. 26). Because communities differ based on diverse social, economic, demographic, a nd physical factors, CPTED should not be considered as a one size fits all solution. It is not an exact science; hence a set checklist should not be used to survey every community. CPTED is rather a set of guidelines, constantly evolving based on the community in question. Environmental Factors contributing to Residential Burglary. As previously discussed, CPTED attempts to minimize crime and the fear of crime by focusing on the physical environment. Brantingham (1978) sugge sted that the physical environm ent is able to emit cues or signals to users of a space rega rding its physical, spatial, cultu ral, legal, and psychological characteristics. Through his research, Pascoe (1999, as quoted in Gamman & Pascoe, 2004) developed two models about burglary, a qualitative and quantitative model. Findings from Pascoes qualitative model suggested criminals u tilize environmental cues as clues in their decision process when selecting targets (Gamman & Pascoe, 2004, p. 10). These cues, both built and natural, have the ability to change the response of a potential offender on a target within a space by informing both the offender and victim of th e possibility of observation. In the case of
30 burglary, such cues can include the perception of an easy entry or the risk of being visibly detected (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007). Research shows that nume rous environmental cues, or risk factors, contribute to the frequency of residential burglar y occurrence, including social, economic, demographic, biological, psyc hological, and physical factors. As previously stated, considerable amounts of completed research have indicated a correlation between environmental variables a nd crime rates. For example, Brantingham and Brantingham (1975, p. 274) state that knowledge of crime patterning perm its the architect to abate some crime problems through building design and suggest the possibility of general urban crime control planning, bearing directly on Osca r Newmans research findings. DeFrances and Titus (1993) further concluded that criminals re duce their risk and increase their payoff based mainly on environmental features. Studies comple ted by Bennett and Wright (1984) contradicted the above-mentioned findings, sta ting that there was no clear connection between the physical environment and rates of burglary (as quoted in Stollard, 1991, p. 7). The study conducted by Bennett and Wright (1994), did conclude that individual environmental cues, particularly surveillabilit y, traces of occupancy, and symbolic barriers, contribute to the potentia l for an offender to commit a criminal act. For example, potential offenders determine the probability of occupancy based upon the presence of vehicles in the driveway or garage, or whether the gate to the fence is left open. Nee and Taylor (1988) discuss four broad phys ical environmental cu e categories: layout cues, wealth cues, occupancy cues, and security cues. They argue that environmental cues are comprised of the layout of the pr operty (i.e. location of larger pl ants, pathways, and structures). Wealth Cues refer to the expensive or luxurious and attractive dcor of a community or property. Occupancy cues refer to the appearance that the community or property is currently being
31 inhabited. Elements such as closed blinds, an ove rgrown lawn, a lack of vehicular presence, or a stack of unmoved newspapers situated in the driv eway are all examples of environmental cues potentially indicating that the residence is presently uninhabite d, and therefore more. Security cues can also be environmental cues by notifying the offender of security measures in place to ensure the protection of the re sidence, however the perceive d benefit can be interpreted completely different by the resi dent and offender. For example, a resident may perceive an alarmed house sign as a security cue, warning o ffenders of the risk associated with targeting that particular residence. However, offenders might perceive th e sign as an indicator that the residence contains something of value worth prot ecting, resulting in the perception of a better reward for the risk. Other studies conducted by Byrne and Sampson (1986) concluded that variables, including poverty, ethnicity, age, composition, income, education, gender, and residency, directly contribute to the occurre nce of criminal activity, as previously mentioned. Environmental criminologists also argue that the physical environmen t directly affects the occurrence of criminal activity. Specifically, land uses, lighti ng, and the design of landscape and space modify crime patterns without doing significant dama ge to basic human rights (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981, p. 4). Further studies condu cted by Macdonald and Gifford (1989) and Brown and Bentley (1993) suggest, cue combinations rather than individual environmental cues, have more of an effect on the offenders perception of risk. Prospect and Refuge Theory. People scan their environmen ts in search of signals to danger [known as environmental cues], and once a danger is sighted, they attempt to escape the threat (Fisher & Nasar, 1992, p. 36). When designers employ the basic theories of crime prevention and the built environment within the site design, the da ngers are potentially
32 minimized. In an attempt to minimize those dangers and aid in survival from hazards, users of a space often prefer the environment, built and natural, to provide an open view and to provide protection, which is also referre d to as prospect and refuge (Appleton, 1975). The promotion of observation and protection through site design en sures that users are given these important opportunities. Consequently, designers of a space must be careful not to cater to intruders, who more than often, find places that offer prospect and refuge more favorable. Fisher and Nasar (1992, p. 37) discussed children stealing candy from a shop as an example of prospect and refuge. They say that ch ildren will use a path to keep out of view of the merchant and the mirrors, and they seek a lo cation where they can see (or hear) if someone is about to approach. When this safety is establis hed, they grab the candy and exit. Spaces that minimize blind spots or lurk lines by reducin g alcoves and dense shrubbery would all be important to legitimate users of the space because offenders can use these elements as a way to observe and hear without themselves being observed. Expanding on a study completed by Brantingham and Brantingham (1981), we hypothesize that a combination of cues, including lighting and lands cape factors, have the ability to adequately modify a space to promote surve illability and protection, thereby discouraging the occurrence of residential burgl aries and minimizing the danger s discussed by Appleton (1975), and Fisher and Nasar (1992). And to reiterate, we suggest that the installation, location and maintenance of lighting and landscape, or lack ther eof, aid in the perception of risk, resulting in opportunities for the occurrence by a possible offender. Through the placement of these cues, the total occurrence rate of residential burglaries can potentially decrease. Lighting. Numerous studies and evaluations examin ing the effects of lighting on criminal activity have been conducted th roughout the United States an d United Kingdom by researchers,
33 including Fleming and Burrows (1986), Pain ter (1994), Atkins (1991), Ramsay and Newton (1991), and Pease (1999), finding the mixed resu lts of relationships between lighting and criminal activity, as seen in Table 2-2 Table 2-5. HORS25 1, a study completed by Farrington and Welsh (2002b) reviewed the re lationship between the installati on of improved street lighting and levels of crime, based on assumptions listed in Table 2-6. While it does not directly affect the occurrence of criminal ac tivity, improved lighting, even in daylight, can reduce crime by increasing the possibility for surveillance, ther eby altering the percep tions, attitudes, and behavior of residents an d potential offenders (Farrington & Welsh, 2002, p. 3). Four of the American evaluation studies conducted by Farrington and Welsh (2002) resulted in a 7% reduction of crime when stre et lighting was improved, while the other four resulted in no effect. Increasingly supportive evidence from five British evaluation studies conducted more recently found that crime was reduced by 30% with the implementation of improved street lighting. Also, fi nancial costs of crime were significantly reduced, making the improvement of street lighting a worthy and reas onable way to increase security in areas by increasing the possibility for nighttime surveillance. Based on findings supporting the connection be tween lighting and crime prevention, some city governments and police departments have successfully implemented and enforced ordinances that promote opportunities for survei llance. Many governments and policing officials have been educated on the research linking li ghting and crime prevention, and thus have attempted to initiate defining principles and ordi nances in attempts to minimize criminal activity. According to the Tempe Police Department (n.d.) the most effective deterrent to criminal activity is to install proper lighting and ensure that it is used to its fullest potential. Therefore, the Tempe P.D. (n.d.) addresses interi or and exterior lighti ng for home security, saying that exterior
34 lighting should be installed near doors and in the rear of the house, where intruders do most of their work. All sides of [a] home should be protected by security lighting that is located high out of reach, and is vandal resistan t. Eatontown, New Jersey created an outdoor lig hting ordinance guide that explains the importance of creati ng specific lighting ordi nances and discusses specification recommendations for their outdoor lighting system. In January 2009, Dallas County proposed an amendment to their governing ordinances for selected apartment complexes. They state that lighting must not only be provided, but it must operate and be routinely maintained so that facial feature recognition are distinguishable thirty-five feet away (Dallas County, 2009). While researchers continue to argue the direct link between lighting and crime reduction, we feel that lighting, for the most part, is impor tant to create a sense of comfort and safety and reduce fear. Lighting, when used properly and in the right setting, can be ex tremely beneficial to users of the space by increasing surveillability and minimizing the fear of crime. As a result, we hypothesize that residential burgla ry rates within the selected GHA public housing developments are reduced with not only the installation of improved street lighting, but also with proper planting materials and routine maintenance of th e planted landscape. As described below, we would hope we could generalize ou r findings, and similar ideas can be implemented in settings with related contexts to our se lected public housing developments, in an attempt to reduce the occurrence of residential burglaries; however we know that it may not be a reasonable aspiration given the sample size. Landscaping. As mentioned earlier, we hypothesize th at properly maintained landscaping can help to minimize the occurrence of reside ntial burglaries in public housing developments. Several researchers have studied the relationship between landscap ing and the incidence and fear of crime. The key issues with landscaping, according to Stollard (1991, p. 51), are to not detract
35 from pedestrians visibility or create seclude d areas for intruders to lurk. While most individuals employ landscaping as a tool to beautify their space, creating a pleasant and attractive property, intruders and offenders ha ve a completely different perception and interpretation of the environment. Plants a nd landscaping, if not routinely manicured and maintained properly, can become an incentive for intruders to commit burglaries by creating secluded spaces, not available to easy surveilla nce. By using proper types of plants and continuing maintenance on the landscape by trimmi ng back trees and shrubs, visibility can be improved, and potentially reduce the opportuniti es for residential burglaries to occur. Through the use and placement of proper landscaping and planting materials, a property can specify not only the uses for spaces, but also where foot traffic is permitted and not permitted, while also ensuring that concealment of intruders does not occur. Schneider and Kitchen (2002) also note that landscaping is a great means to create boundary definition and territorial markings. However, t he appropriate selection of plan t materials is important within any scheme (Stollard, 1991, p. 52). For example, s hort shrubbery and plants would be ideal to line a permitted footpath, while taller plants would not be ideal. Ensuring that taller plants are not situated adjacent to doorways and windows is another important example of utilizing proper planting material. If such taller plants are situat ed adjacent to these areas, surveillability becomes more difficult from the interior of the structure, enabling an intruder to occupy an exterior space without being detected by the resident. The culmination of numerous studies relating cr ime and vegetation, dating as far back as 1285, have found that criminal acts are facili tated by vegetation due to the available opportunities for surveillance (Pluncknett, 1960, quoted in Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Although the presence of vegetation is not requ ired for burglaries to occur, it increases the fear that something
36 will occur and also enables concealment of an offender. Schroeder, Anderson, Talbot and Kaplan (1984, quoted in Kuo & Sullivan, 2001) found that people felt safest in open, mowed areas, and felt less safe and in danger in dens ely vegetated areas. Studies by Shaffer and Anderson (1985) determined that not only is there a link between vegetation and fear of crime, but that dense vegetation fac ilitates the occurrence of criminal activity by reducing the possibility for surveillance and ultimately allowing the offender to conceal themselves (Michael & Hull, 1994 quoted in Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Ta ble 2-8 lists some of the findings from research that have identified the relationship between landscaping and crime. While most studies have examined the e ffects of dense vegetation promoting the occurrence and fear of criminal activity, K uo and Sullivan (2001, p. 346) hypothesized that particular types of vegetation, such as grass a nd low shrubbery, have the ability to preserve visibility and opportunities for surveillance, thus inhibiting crime in poor inner-city neighborhoods by increasing surveillance and m itigating some of the psychological precursors to violence. Their study revealed a negative link between lower amounts of vegetation and higher levels of property crim es, finding fewer total crimes with increased amounts of greenscape, such as grass and trees with taller canopi es, surrounding buildings. In comparison to buildings with low amounts of vegetation, buildin gs with medium amounts of vegetation resulted in 40% lower property crimes, and buildings with large amounts of vege tation resulted in 48% fewer property crimes. Previous studies have al so analyzed the relationship between crime and the amount of vegetation; however the study conducted by Kuo & Sullivan (2001) further examined the link, suggesting a relationship between particular types and uses of vegetation as it relates to the occurrence of criminal activity.
37 Based on researchers findings, cities acr oss the United States and United Kingdom understand that landscaping can influence the occu rrence of residential burglaries. Communities, including Tempe & Tucson, Arizona, Dallas, Texa s and Orlando, Florida, have incorporated elements of landscaping safety, typically related to CPTED, with in their governing ordinances. Orlando, Floridas current govern ing ordinances address lands caping and crime prevention within their ordinances, stating that, all greens, plazas, parks and trails shall incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (C PTED) concepts (City of Orlando, Sec. 68.500d6). The residential landscaping or dinances further explain that: Landscaping should not create blind s pots or hiding spots, particularly between the driveway or street side walk and the primary entrance of a residential structure. Properly ma intained landscaping should provide maximum viewing to and from the house. (City of Orlando, Sec. 68.503 b 7) The Tempe Police Departments website a ddresses a diverse range of increasing community security by reducing opportunities fo r criminals. The lands caping section of the Tempe Police Departments websit e says that residents should: Trim shrubbery and trees so doors an d windows are visible to neighbors, and from the street. Trimmed landscap ing should not provide concealment for criminals. If you have a second floor prune trees so they cant help a thief climb in second floor windows. Place trellises where they cant be used as ladders to gain entry to th e upper floors. (City of Tempe, n.d.) They further discuss specific measurements for landscaping. Ground plants (shrubbery and bushes) within four (4) feet of any sidewalks, driveways, doors or gates, should be maintained at a height of not more than two (2) feet. Ground plants between four (4) and eight (8) fe et of any sidewalks, driveways, doors, or grates, should be maintained at a heig ht of not more than four (4) feet. Ground plants under windows should be maintained at a height that is below the window sill.
38 Trees should be trimmed so that the lower branches are more than six (6) feet off the ground. Place large gauge gravel on the ground near windows. The noise caused by intruders walking on it can become a psychological deterrent. Plant spiny (thorny) plants along fences and under windows. Such plants will discourage intruder[s]. (City of Tempe, n.d.) A proposed amendment to Dallas Counties ( 2009) governing ordinances discussed both lighting and landscaping. The amended ordina nce addressed landscaping within apartment complexes, requiring small plants may not be ta ller than three and one -half feet, tree canopies must be at least six feet above the ground, and all landscaping must be r outinely maintained. Landscaping is an environmental cue that has a role in the perpetrators decision of the impending risk and rewards associated with th e particular residence. Ultimately, based on various conducted studies of research, in cluding the study conducted by Kuo and Sullivan (2001), and our understanding of the need fo r crime-reducing techniques employed in community governing ordinances, we feel that in stalling context-sensitive landscaping materials and performing routine landscaping maintenance is crucial to minimizing residential burglaries. Situational Crime Prevention Sim ilar to C. Ray Jeffrey and CPTED, Rona ld V. Clarkes theory, situational crime prevention, arose from the study of juvenile offenders and is strongly in fluenced by defensible space and CPTED and is a modified model of r outine activity and rational choice theories (Schneider & Kitchen, 2002). Situ ational crime prevention aims to design safe settings organize effective procedures and deve lop safe products (Felson, 2002, pp. 144-145), resulting in eliminating the opportunities for crim inal activity to occur. Unlike the previous place-based crime prevention theories, situatio nal crime prevention incorporates management and use issues, along with the physical environment issue.
39 The defining principles of the place and cr ime specific theory are the availability of opportunity, and the reduction, modification, or redirection of temptation through strategous planning methods. Clarke suggests that risk, e ffort, reward, provocation, and shame and guilt are all primary factors leading to a given oppor tunity (Schneider & Kitchen, 2007, p. 27). Supplemental elements to situational crime prevention, the rational choice theory and routine activity theory shape the situational crim e prevention theory, and provide a theory that attempts to understand how offenders select targ ets. Clarke and Felson (1993, as quoted in Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2007, p. 271) determine that t hough differing in scope and purpose rational choice theory and routine activity theory are compatible, and i ndeed, mutually supportive as evident in the Table 2-7. Rational Choice Theory. Rational choice theory, a necessary supporting theory to situational crime prevention that was modi fied and expanded by Clarke, proposes that relationships between concepts are expressed no t in mathematical terms but in the form of decision diagrams (Clarke & Felson, 1993, quoted in Yang, 2006, p. 16). Rational choice theory focuses primarily on e liminating opportunities for crime. Schneider and Kitchen (2002) hypothesize that criminals ma ke decisions based on expenditure of effort, risk factors, and expected rewards. Situational crime prevention and ratio nal choicesuggest that offenders make considered decisions to commit crime in specific situations based upon the perceived expenditure of effo rt, balanced by risk factors and expected reward. Environmental (or situ ational) elements that increase risks and energy, and diminished rewards reduce crime rewards, hence the opportunity, in those circumstances. (Schneider and Kitchen, 2002, p. 106) Four main elements, including an articulated theoretical framework, a standard methodology, opportunity-reducing tec hniques, and a body of evaluate d practice (Clarke, 1997; Yang, 2006) are employed in attempts to reduce a nd eliminate the opportunities for crime. Costs
40 and benefits are compared, consequently enab ling the potential offe nder to make rational decisions as to how they should react. U ltimately, opportunity and rewards within the environment, or environmental cues, along with the values, beliefs, or socialization of the potential offender, are fundamental points within the occurrence of a crime, particularly how the potential offender decides to react to the opportu nity. Opportunity-reducing techniques become key factors in determining the availability for crim inal opportunity to ex ist. Consequently, supported by the literature, we suggest that the use of both simple techniques, such as target hardening, and more sophisticated techniques of deterring crime, are both important methods utilized in an attempt to reduce or prevent crim inal activity, specifically residential burglary. Situational crime prevention, or iginally formulated as seven components including: target hardening, target removal, removing the mean s to crime, reducing crime payoff, natural surveillance, surveillance by employees and envi ronmental management, has evolved into Figure 2-1, showing the twenty-five tech niques of situational crime prevention, which derived from Clarkes (1997) sixteen opport unity-reducing techniques. Ligh ting, one of the environmental cues we chose to evaluate based on crime prevention, is an example of an opportunity-reducing technique. Lighting becomes important to both le gitimate and illegitimate inhabitants of a space by illuminating the space, which makes legitimate users have a lessened fear of crime and illegitimate users have a highe r fear of being observed by ot hers. Landscaping also becomes important to reducing criminal activity, as the ev idence demonstrates. Designers must ensure that landscaping is used properly to delineate pathways and beautify, however it must be used carefully, with an eye towards maintenance, as to not create opportunistic environments for offenders.
41 Routine Activity Theory. Routine activity theory focuse s on any recurrent and prevalent activities which provide for basic population and individual needs (Cohen & Felson, 1979, p. 593). It assumes that uniting time, space, and th ree elements: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian ag ainst crime, can influence crime rates. Police officers, security guards, and citizens can all act as guardians in an attempt to discourage the occurrence of crime by protecting targets. Felson and Clarke (1998) identify value, iner tia, visibility, and access (or VIVA) as the main elements contributing to the offenders view point to commit a criminal attack on a target. Offenders must value the target, which must be vi sible to the offender and capable of transport. However, if the offender is not able to make cont act with the target, or particular environmental or situational factors impede on the ability to obta in the target, then a crim inal act will not occur. The theory effectively explains some of the increase of residential burglaries within the United States and Western Europe during the 1960s and 70s, and allows us to understand the importance of environmental cu es as related to criminal opportunities. For example, one explanation for the higher occurrences in burgl aries is that women be gan working full-time outside of the house. There were less people (or guardian s) at home to prot ect potential targets from offenders. Concurrently, suitable targets for burglary increased as families invested in electronic goods, such as small televisions. Several studies suggest a correlation between daily activities and likeli hood of victimization. Low levels of act ivity outside of the residence, both during daytime and nighttime, decrease the risk for victimization (Miethe, Stafford, & Long, 1987). Subsequently, as people spend more tim e among strangers and away from their own homes, their risk of personal and property vi ctimization rises (Fel son & Clarke, 1998).
42 The routine activity th eory is one foundation to designi ng for crime prevention. Conditions can alter the opportunities for crime to occur; and if particular c onditions are removed, the theory argues that the offences can be prevented altogether. Essentially, crime will not occur if either, the offender, the target, or the guardian is removed from the equation. For example, conveyance burglaries can be minimized if the driver chooses to remove all item s that may be valuable to an offender from direct visibility. Environmental Criminology Developed by Paul and Patricia Brantingha m environmental criminology, although having primarily a geographic focus, is largely based on both CPTED and defensible space principles. Environmental criminology and situational crim e prevention are similar and are explained through the supplemental theories of rational choice and routin e activity theories. Brantingham and Brantingham (1981) differentiate between these two approach es by stating that: A robbery committed by a minority youth one block from his home in the ghetto and a burglary committed by a middle-class white youth one block from home in the suburbs might be treated as unrelated by the sociol ogical imagination, but as identic al (one block from home, at noon) by the geographical imagination ( Brantingham & Brantingham, 1982, p. 21). Also known as pattern theory, environmental criminology focuses on exposing patterns of criminal and victimization occurrences. Accord ing to the theory, five things are needed for crimes to happen: a law, an offender, a victim (or target), at a time and place (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981). Focusing on the geographical elements of crime, environmental criminology has prompted crime mapping and anal ysis with the assistance of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). As previously discussed, researchers have determined a direct correlation between environmental variables and rates of criminal activity within a community. Theorists have developed defining place-based crime prevention theories to assist with the reduction of criminal
43 activity. Communities are able to employ contextsensitive applications of the theories by overlapping principle elements within each specific theory. The Application of Geographic Inform at ion Systems in Crime Analysis The development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has provided a method to link data and spatial analysis. Relative to crime, GIS can be used to analyze and compare crime patterns across spatial dimensions. Law enforcemen t agencies (LEA) from the United States and the United Kingdom have incorporated GIS-base d crime mapping and crime forecasting within their departments in an effort to illustrate crime patterns and trends. Relative to forecasting and analyzing crime, GIS can be used at all points of the process, manipula ting data in the beginning, analyzing data, and displaying graphical represen tation at any point of the process (Groff & La Vigne, 2002). GIS has allowed crime analysts not only to graphically represent crime problems, but also organize, and manipulate the crime type, location, forensic details, and police resources and responses. The visual repres entation through GIS has aided au thorities by creating graphical images of large quantities and type s of stored spatial da ta that have been aggregated by incident type, location, and time (Schneider & Kitc hen, 2002; Bichler-R obertson & Johnson, 2001). Ultimately, crime mapping has been useful to la w enforcement agencies by identifying the extent of a crime problem and targeting resour ces to deal with the problem (Doran & Lees, 2005, p. 10). While utilized to analyze numerous subjec ts, law enforcement agencies employ GIS specifically to identify and highlight susp icious incidents and events, enhance the implementation of particular policing methodologies in order to reduce overall crime and disorder, and to provide tools and technique to capture series of crimes and forecast future crime occurrences (ESRI, 2008). According to Schneid er and Kitchen (2002), police crime analysts utilize computerized crime mapping typically to identify crime seri es, sprees, hotspots, hot dots,
44 hot products, and hot targets; how ever crime hotspots and hot targ ets are the most important to our study, as seen in Table 2-9. To understand the capabilities of crime analysts with the assistance of GIS-based crime mapping, we would like to share an example of law enforcement successfully utilizing the program, resulting in the forecast of the next pa tterned criminal occurrence. The implementation of GIS mapping within law enforcement agencies has aided in decreasing the percent of burglary occurrences. For example, law enforcement in Ha rtford, Connecticut has seen a decrease in burglaries as they have star ted creating weekly and 28-day burglary maps. By graphically representing the time of day a nd the day of week of burglary occurrences, the agency has been able to recognize trends and deploy resources, resulting in a 34% decrease of all burglaries within the city (Schwarz, n.d.). The Crime Analysis Unit at the Gainesville Police Department in Gainesville, Florida also employs crime ma pping and forecasting within their policing. Employing the information-led-policing tech nique, they provide crime-forecasting information to the patrol units on a daily basis. The crime analysts examine motives of incidences and take into consideration similariti es with past occurrences, and release a Crime Snapshot to their officers, as a means of k eeping the officers current on all incidences. The Crime Analysts provide information to officers based on the pattern of th e past occurrences, and request increased patrol in the sp ecified area where the analyst beli eves there is a good chance of another occurrence.2 Summary Individu als, as well as entire communities, can be dramatically affected by the occurrence of residential burglary. Over the past couple of years, property crimes have decreased, although 2 Based on personal observations and experiences.
45 residential burglaries have continued to occu r. Theorists have developed place-based crime prevention theories to explain and minimize th e occurrence of place-based crimes, such as residential burglary. Research has suggested a lin k between environmental cues, or signs, and burglary, specifically suggesting that multiple cues have more of an effect on the selected target by the offender. Specifically, lighting and landscapi ng have been suggested as key environmental factors, in the promotion or dete rrence of the fear and incidence of criminal activity. Therefore, we hypothesize that the inclusion and maintenance of both lighting a nd landscape aid in the deterrence of residential burglary incidences. Specifically, we hypot hesize that the proper siting, use, and maintenance of lighting and landscaping materials aid in the de terrence of residential burglaries within the selected GHA public housing developments. This chapter provided an overview of the pl ace-based theories associated with crime prevention and the physical environment, both built and natural. We began by discussing residential burglary and the effects on its vict ims. Secondly, we discussed defensible space, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), situational crime prevention, and environmental criminology, the place-based crim e prevention theories. We explored how GIS became employed by law enforcement agencies as a geographic analysis tool, crucial to the study and evaluation of criminal acts. We also explored the idea that the installation, location, and routine maintenance of both lig hting and landscape aid in the reduction of criminal activity, particularly residential burglary, by allowing surveillance to o ccur easily without obstruction.
46 Table 2-1. Comparison of Defensible Sp ace Principles and CPTED Strategies Defensible Space Principles (New man) CPTED Strategies (Crowe) Territoriality boundary definition Border definition of controlled space Territoriality boundary definition access control Clearly marked transitional zones Surveillance access control Attention directed to gathering area Image and milieu: activity generation Place safe activities in unsafe areas Image and milieu: activity generation Place unsafe activities in safe locations Boundary definition access control Reduce use conflicts with natural barriers None Better scheduling of space Surveillance Increase perception of natu ral surveillance in spaces by design None Overcome distance and isolation by communication. Source: Schneider & Kitchen, 2002, p. 102 Table 2-2. Conclusions Relating Improved Street Lighting and Crime Researcher Conclusion Painter (1994) A decline of disorder and f ear of crime while increasing pedestrian street use Ramsay and Newton (1991) Lighting alone has very little effect on crime Atkins, Husain, & Storey (1991) No effect of street lighting on crime Pease (1999) There is potential in reduci ng crime through improved street lighting Painter & Tilly (1999, p. 48) Inescapable conclusion that stre et lighting can help in crime control. Source: Adopted from Farrington, 2002, p. 2
47 Table 2-3. How Improved Lighting Could Affect Crime How Improved Lighting could REDUCE Crime How Improved Lighting could INCREASE Crime In Darkness: In Darkness: Improved lighting deters potential offenders by increasing the risk that they will be seen or recognized when committing crimes. Police become more visi ble, thus leading to a decision to desist from crime. If improved lighting lead s to the arrest and imprisonment of repeat offenders, they can no longer commit crimes in the area. New lighting can encourage residents to spend more time on their stoops or in their front yards in the evenings and thus increase informal surveillance. Improved lighting can encourage more people to walk at night, which would increase informal surveillance. Increased social activity outside the home in the evenings can increase the number of unoccupied homes available for burglary. Increased visibility of potential victims allows better assessment of their vulnerability and the value of what they carry. Offenders might more easily be able to see if parked cars contain valuable items. Increase visibility al lows better judgment of the proximity capable guardians who might intervene in crime. Better lighting might facilitate activities like drug dealing and prostitution Better lit streets might attract disorderly youths from nearby areas. Improved lighting of rarely used footpaths might facilitate undesirable behavior In Daylight: In Daylight: New lighting shows that city government and the police are determined to control crime. As a result, potential offenders might no longer see the neighborhood as affording easy pickings. In addition, citizens might be motivated to pass on information about offenders. Better lighting can increase community pride and cohesiveness, leading to a greater willingness to intervene in crime and to report it. If offenders commit crime in both light and darkness, nighttime arrests and subsequent imprisonment would reduce both daytime and nighttime crime. Disorderly activities focused upon a newly illuminated area can spill over into the use of that place as a daylight meeting point. Source: Clarke, 2008, p. 6 7 (adopted from Pease 1999)
48 Table 2-4. Eight Street Lighting Ev aluations in the United States Study City Intervention Area Increase in Lighting Other Intervention Outcome Measure Follow-Up (Months) Effect Atlanta Regional Com. (1974) Atlanta, GA City center 4 times None Crime (robbery, assault, and burglary) 12 Desirable effect; no displacement DIFL1 (1974) Milwaukee, WI Residential and commercial area 7 times None Crime (property and person categories) 12 Desirable effect, some displacement Inskeep and Goff (1974) Portland, OR Residential neighborhood (high crime) 2 times None Crime (robbery, assault, and burglary) 6 or 11 Null effect, no displacement or diffusion Wright et al. (1974) Kansas City Residential and commercial areas No information None Crime (violent and property offenses) 12 Desirable effect (for violence); some displacement Harrisburg P.D. (1976) Harrisburg, PA Residential neighborhood No information None Crime (violent and property offenses) 12 Null effect; no displacement Sternhell (1977) New Orleans, LA Residential and commercial areas No information None Crime (burglary, vehicle theft, and assault) 29 Null effect, no displacement Lewis and Sullivan (1979) Fort Worth, TX Residential neighborhood 3 times None Crime (total) 12 Desirable effect; possible displacement Ouinet and Nunn (1998) Indianapolis, IN Residential neighborhood No information Police initiates Calls for service (violent and property crime) 7 to 19 Null effect; no displacement Source: Clarke, 2008, p. 12 1 Department of Intergovernmental Fiscale Liaison
49 Table 2-5. Three Street Lighting Evaluations in the United Kingdom Study City Intervention Area Increase in Lighting Other Intervention Outcome Measure Follow-Up (Months) Effect Shaftoe (1994) Bristol Residential neighborhood 2 times None Crime (total) 12 Desirable effect; diffusion and displacement not measured Painter and Farrington Dudley Local authority housing estate 2 times None Crime (total and types of offenses) 12 Desirable effect; no displacement Painter and Farrington (1999) Stoke-on-Trent Local authority housing estate 5 times None Crime (total and types of offenses) 12 Desirable effect; diffusion, no displacement Source: Clarke, 2008, p. 13
50 Table 2-6. Causal Links between Street Lighting and Crime Lighting may reduce crime by improving visibi lity. This deters potential offenders by increasing the risks that they will be recognized or interrupt ed in the course of their activities (Mayhew et al ., 1979). The presence of police a nd other authority Figures also becomes more visible. Lighting improvements may encourage increased street usage, which intensifies natural surveillance. The change in routine activity patterns works to re duce crime because it increases the flow of potent ially capable guardians (Cohe n and Felson, 1979). From the potential offenders perspective, the proximity of other pedestrians acts as a deterrent since the risks of being recognized or interrupted when attacking personal or property targets are increased. From the potential victims perspective, perceived risks and fear of crime are reduced. Enhanced visibility and increas ed street usage may interact to heighten possibilities for informal surveillance. Pedestrian density and flow and surveillance have long been regarded as crucial for crime control sin ce they can influence potential offenders perceptions of the likely ri sks of being caught (Newma n, 1972; Bennett and Wright, 1984). The renovation of a highly noticeable component of the physical environment combined with changed social dynamics may act as a psychological deterrent. Potential offenders may judge that the image of the location is im proving and that social control, order, and surveillance have increased (Taylor and Gottfredson, 1986). Th ey may deduce that crime in the relit location is riskier than elsewhere and this can influence behavior in two ways. First, potential offenders living in the area will be deterred from committing offences or escalating their activities. Second, potential offenders from outside the area will be deterred from entering it (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). However, crimes may be displaced from the relit area to other places. Lighting may improve community confidence. It provides a highly noticeable sign that local authorities are investing in the fabric of the area. This offsets any previous feelings of neglect and stimulates a general feel good factor. It may also encourage informal social control and interventions by residents to prevent crime and disorder. Fear of crime may be reduced. Improved illumination may reduce fear of crime because it physically improves the environment and alters public perceptions of it. People sense that a well-lit environment is less dangerous than one that is dark (Warr, 1990). The positive image of the night-time environment in the relit area is shared by residents and pedestrians. As actual and perceived risks of victimization lessen, the area becomes used by a wider crosssection of the community. The changed social mix a nd activity patterns within the locality reduce the risk and fear of crime. Source: Farrington & Welsh, 2002, p. 3 4
51 Table 2-7. Routine Activity and Rational Choice ; Comparing and Contrasting the Approaches Routine Activity Rational Choice Organizing perspective Yes Yes Explanatory focus: Criminal event Criminal dispositions Yes No Yes Yes Level of explanation Macro Micro Causal theory Yes No Situational focus Yes Yes Crime specific Yes Yes Rational offender Implicit Explicit Policy orientation Implicit Explicit Disciplinary parentage Geography, demography, human ecology Psychology, economics, sociology of deviance, environmental criminology Source: Clarke & Felson, 1993, quoted in Yang, 2006, p. 20
52Table 2-8. Findings Relating Landscaping and Crime and Fear of Crime Researcher Conclusion Schroeder & Anders (1984) Individuals feel most vulnerable in densely forested areas and safest in open, mowed areas. Talbot & Kaplan (1984) Most preferred scenic photos were parks or neigh borhood scenes with natural and built elementstrees were widely spaced throughout fairly open grassy areas with buildings visible in the background. Least preferred scenic photos were unmanaged areas with heavy vegetation and undergrowth, dense groupings of mostly dead trees and dominated by weeds. Shaffer & Anderson (1984) vegetation may increase both per ceptions of attractiveness and security if the vegetation is wellmaintained and attractively landscaped. The presence of unmaintained, natural vegetation might have the opposite effect on security perc eptions, particularly in isolated, rundown areas (p. 320). Nasar & Fisher (1993) an increase in fear related to con cealment for offenders, and blocked prospect and escape for victims Policies to prevent these areas for concealment call fo r trimmed vegetation, lighting of dark pathways, and lighting and cameras in pa rking lots (pp. 202 203). Fisher & Nasar (1992) Michael & Hull (1994) Fear of crime is higher where vegetation blocks views (as quoted in Kuo & Sullivan, 2001, p. 345). Michael, Hull, & Zahm (1999) Physical features especially vege tation play an important role in the offense by allowing criminals to unobtrusively observe victims for useful information (p. 382). vegetation was neither necessary nor sufficient for a crime to take place (as quoted in Kuo & Sullivan, 2001, p. 345). Kuo & Sullivan (2001) Dense vegetation provides potentia l cover for criminal activities, possibly increasing the likelihood of crime and certainly increasing th e fear of crime. Large shrubs underbrush, and dense woods all substantially diminish visibility and therefore are capable of supporting criminal activity (p. 345). Nasar (1982) In residential settingshigher levels of vegetation were associated with less fear of crime (as quoted in Kuo & Sullivan, 2001, p. 348). Brower, Dockett, & Taylor (1983) properties appeared safer when trees and shrubs were included than when they were not (as quoted in Kuo & Sullivan, 2001, p. 348). Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan (1998b) the presence and density of trees had clear, consistent, and substant ial effects on residents preference and sense of safety, tree placement had essentially no e ffect on preference and an inconsistent effect on sense of safety (p. 48). Source: Adopted from Schroeder & Anders (1984), Talbot & Ka plan, Shaffer & Anderson (1984), Nasar & Fisher (1993), Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan (1998a), Michael, Hull, & Zahm (1999), Kuo & Sullivan (2001), Na sar (1982), Brower, Dockett, & Taylor (1983), and Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan (1998b).
53 Table 2-9. Defining Criminal-Mapping Trends and Patterns Crime Series Recurrence of similar crimes committed by one offender Crime Hotspots Small areas or specific locations in which an unusual amount of crime activity occurs that may be committed by one or more offenders Crime Hot Dots An individual associated with an unusu al amount of criminal activity, either as an offender or a victim Hot Products Types of property that are th e repeated target of crime Hot targets Particular types of target that are vict imized but that are not confined to one geographic location Source: Schneider and Kitchen, 2002, p. 109
54 Figure 2-1. Twenty-five Techniques of Situa tional Prevention. [Adapted from Popcenter. Nd. Twenty-five Techniques of Situationa l Prevention. Retrieved October 2, 2009 from http://www.popcenter.org/25techniques/ ].
55 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction This thesis uses case study m ethodology involving a review of data sets and informal, unstructured interviews to understand the relationship between occurrences of residential burglaries and lighting and landscap ing environmental cues. Particul arly, this research looks at the occurrence of reside ntial burglaries within selected Ga inesville Housing Authority (GHA) developments, to determine if lig hting and/or landscape may have played any role within the occurrences of residentia l burglaries. To examine the occurren ce of the residential burglaries in our study developments, we completed mapping ex ercises, conducted informal interviews and site visits, and reviewed documentation pertaining to our selected topic. Case studies typically allow for an in-depth analysis of the topic in consideration. The methodology allows the researcher to form c onclusions and develop recommendations for the future. According to Yin (1984, p. 19-20), cas e studies are preferred in examining contemporary events, but when the relevant beha viors cannot be manipulat ed The case studys unique strength is its ability to deal with a full variety of evidence documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations. Our study involved re searching the literature pertaining to the subject, and then selecting, de veloping, and analyzing the cas e study, through the collection of data, which includes data from the Gainesv ille, Florida Police Department (GPD), the Gainesville, Florida Housing Authority (GHA), and the Alachua County, Florida Property Appraiser, as well as histori cal documents pertaining to the lighting and landscaping of the selected sites. Our research also includes obs ervations of the selected sites, examining the inclusion, location, and upkeep of our selected environmental cues.
56 The goal of this research is to better understand the occurr ence of residen tial burglaries within our selected sites, a nd to understand the role that li ghting and landscaping cues play within reported incidences. Topic Selection Yangs (2006) dissertation intr igued the author, exam ining th e idea of environmental cues, as they relate to residential burglary and repe at victimization. After further reading regarding residential burglaries, we understo od that residential burglary is traditionally more problematic within public housing developments. After previo usly observing residential areas, specifically during nighttime hours, the author recognized that lighting has a large impact on the incidence and fear of crime, even during daylight hours. During the authors informal conversations, Corporal Jaime Kurnick mentioned concern with the lack of substantial ordi nances related to landscaping in th e City of Gainesvilles Code of Ordinance. Understanding that a landscaping ordi nance would be extremely beneficial to GPDs ability to successfully patrol the city, we felt th e necessity to examine how landscaping relates to (what would typically be) the more criminogenic ar eas of the city. Based on discussions with Dr. Schneider and Corporal Kurnick, as well as a review of the literature, we hypothesize that lighting and landscaping are key en vironmental cues or risk factors pertaining to residential burglaries. Any findings of th eir relationship, further recomme ndations to the commission, and recommendations for future research hopefully will be beneficial to the Gainesville Police Department, the City Commission, and the citizens of Gainesville, Florida. After selection of our topic, our work began by focusing on archival data. In so doing, we gathered literature pertaining to place-based crime prevention t echniques, focusing specifically how they alter the incidence of and fear of crime. Particularly we focused on literature that suggested that environmental cues, which serve as risk factors to legitimate and illegitimate users
57 of a space, have a direct correlation to the occu rrence of residential burglary. As we previously discussed, research suggests that lighting and landscaping are key environmental cues within an offenders selection to target residences. Therefore, we chose to evaluate how the implementation and maintenance of lighting and landscaping deter or promote the occurrence of residential burglaries. Next, the author and a Crime Prevention O fficer for GPD attended a meeting with the Deputy Executive Director of the Gainesville Hous ing Authority to discuss our interest in the topic as it relates to their properties. We discu ssed research goals for our analysis, findings, and further recommendations. During our meeting, we obtained documentati on relating to the GHA and their properties. Selection of Case Studies Mapping the Study Areas We began the process of selecting our case study by gathering reside ntial burglary data from the Gainesville Police Departments Records Management System (RMS). Through the departments Tracking map, a map synchronized daily to illustrate the reported incidences, we created a query that allowed us to select all residential burglar ies, known as signal 21Rs, that occurred between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008. Once the query was run, our GIS map displayed all of the residential burglaries th at occurred within our selected time frame and within the jurisdiction of GPD. Employing GIS, our initial query of residential burglaries within our time frame resulted in approximately 3,312 repor ted residential burglary incidences, which is mapped in Figure 3-1. Next, we determined the location of all of the GHA public housing properties by inserting the tax parcel shapefile layer for Alachua County, within our map, which was available through the Alachua County Property Appr aisers website. By searchin g the Alachua County Property
58 Appraisers website for parcels by owner name we were able to determine the parcel identification numbers for all of the GHA propertie s. Searching by attributes within GIS, we extracted each GHA public housing development, id entified by the parcel identification number or the physical address. A map of the extracted GHA parcels can be seen in Figure 3-2. We also created a point shapefile locat ing each GHA development, seen in Figure 4-3 in the Findings section. Physical Address Verification According to Tables 3-1 and 3-2, which lists and describes all of the m anaged developments, select GHA developments share a physical address with individual unit numbers, while other housing developments are listed as the block ranges in which they span. For example, Pine Meadows has a physical addre ss of 2626 East University Avenue and has individual unit numbers, while Caroline Manor has units with separate ph ysical addresses that are all on SE 25th Terrace. Physically verifying the bl ock range addresses was necessary to identify the address ranges a nd boundaries of the development1. Select mapped residential burgl aries did not geocode within individual pa rcels of the Alachua County parcel shapefile, rather they geocoded2 within the roadway. Properly geocoding reported residential burglaries became challenging within the Seminary Lane development. To gain further knowledge of the ex act location of the reported incidences, the author determined 1 The author visited properties managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority on September 6, 2009 to physically verify individual unit addresses. These developments included: Lake Terrace, Caroline Manor, Pine Meadows, and Forest Pines. 2 Geocoding is the process of assigning a location, usually in the form of coordinate values (points), to an address by comparing the descriptive location el ements in the address to those present in the reference material. (ESRI, 2008)
59 their locations by physically ve rifying the addresses within the developments in question3. After locating all of the properties, we determined that GHA manages a total of ten developments, which are visible in Figure 3.2, illu strated as parcels, and Figure 43, illustrated as points, in the Findings section. Finally, we examined the reported incidenc es proximity to all GHA developments, by overlaying all of our GIS layers. From this analysis, we selected our stud y areas and victimized units for our case study. Selection of Case Reports Reported incidences of reside ntial burglary were low within our time frame for the properties managed by the GHA, consisting of sixtyfour reported incidences. As a result, we selected the two developments, our treatment s ites, which not only had the highest number of reported incidences, but that also encountered repeat victimization. To select the study areas, we extracted the reported incidences for each developm ent, creating ten different shapefiles, seen in Figure 3-3. We also examined the attribute tabl e, finding the units that had more than one reported incident. All of the developments had unique qualitie s, making the selection of study areas a difficult decision. For example, two properties managed by the GHA are high-rise structures; other properties are duplex and tr iplex units; and still other pr operties are single family units4. Each type of property has pros and cons when choosing to examine its relationship to burglary occurrences. While we believe it is important to observe residential burgl aries within different 3 The author visited properties managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority on September 13, 2009 to physically verify the location of the reported incidence due to the reported incidences being geocoded within the roadway. These developments included: W oodland Park, Caroline Manor, La ke Terrace, and Pine Meadows. 4 Property characteristics were derived from development description documents obtained from the Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA). Reference tables 3-1 and 3-2 to view the GHA documents.
60 types of properties, we understood that by exam ining the developments that experienced the highest number of reported incidences, we would have a greater chance for better understanding how landscaping and lighting serve as risk fact ors for offenders. While observing developments that are characteristically similar may skew our analysis, we felt that an analysis completed on a development experiencing minimal numbers of re sidential burglary woul d be uninformative to our study. Consequently, we selected Pine Mead ows, located at 2626 East University Avenue, and Woodland Park, located at 1900 SE 4th Street, as our study areas. Finally, in the process of selecting our two developments for the case study, we compared the amount of reported residen tial burglary occurrences with in each identified GHA housing development. As previously mentioned, the developments had few reported incidences, with as little as one reported incidence within our three-year time fr ame and as many as nineteen reported incidences. Particular reported inci dences appeared more domestic in nature5. As a result, the reports that appeared more domestic in nature were removed from the total incidences studied for each selected development chosen for observation to ensure an analysis of legitimate reported occurrences. Reports that omitted unit numbers were also removed from our selected case reports. Within our selected study areas, there were or iginally a total of 31 reported incidences. We were responsible for examining a total of 19 re sidential burglaries afte r removing the domestic case reports. Victimized unit numbers were repl aced with surrogate numbers to protect the identity of the victims. We also selected control sites. The firs t site was a Gainesville Housing Authority development that had low victimiza tion rates to compare w ith our selected study 5 We defined these domestic incidences as incidences that occurred between acquaintances, lovers quarrels, and instances where the offender used a mi splaced key to enter the structure. These incidences often involved an individual that attempted to force their way into a unit during a dispute.
61 developments. While there were developments th at experienced only one and three incidences for our selected time frame, the characteristics of the developments were much different than our study developments, as they both were high-rise apartment buildings. Therefore, we chose Caroline Manor, which experienced six reported reside ntial burglaries, as a low-incident development to compare with our study areas. We followed the same identification process, using GIS, RMS data, and the Alachua County parcel shapefile, to identify all victimized units during our study time frame. We extracted the burgla ry incidences in GIS, and examined officer narratives with the intention of removing domestic cases. We removed cases that had unidentifiable unit numbers, and id entified the points of entry for the three reported residential burglaries that we selected. Furthermore, we selected a second control development to compare with our treatment sites. Based on information derived from a conversation held with Corporal Kurnick, the researcher identified Tree Trail Apartments to make comparisons with the victimized units of the selected GHA properties. Tree Trail Apartments is a notoriously low-income high-crime development located in the northeast section of Gaines ville, Florida. Reported incidences within our study and comparison developments were mapped, using GIS and an orthogonal image6 layer, by creating a shapefile a nd inserting points for victimized units and points of entry, as seen in Figures included in the Findings section. Pine Meadows is included in Figures 4-6 and 47; Woodland Park is included in Figures 4-14 and 4-15; and Caroline Manor is included in Figures 4-25 and 4-26. 6 Orthogonal images are a type of satellite imagery that can be imported into GIS.
62 Development of Case Study Mapping Analysis We began developing our case study by re-exam i ning our victimized units within our study areas. We analyzed our GIS map, looking at the estimated time of incidence (TOI) and day of incidence (DOI). We created a day/evening field within the attribute table that allowed us to understand whether incidences occu rred during daylight or nighttime hours. During this process, we were able to examine the orthogonal image la yer, thereby gaining some understanding of the location of victimized units in relation to the study site and surrounding greenscape. We obtained a shapefile from the citys Pub lic Works department, detailing the positions of all light fixtures and poles. The shapefiles at tribute table listed the installation date for each fixture, the mounted height, and th e direction that the arm is faci ng. This allowed us to determine the location of all city-managed lighting fixtures within our developments, and more specifically their proximity to our estimated points of entry. The direction that the arm is facing is also an important field within the shapefile because it al lowed the researcher to determine the direction in which the light is oriented. Maps of li ghting fixture locations within our selected developments can be reviewed in the Findings Section, Figures 4-9, 4-18, and 4-22. Meetings & Informal Interviews with Key Informants Our case study included unstructured, inform al interviews and m eetings with key informants. Throughout the process of select ing and narrowing down our thesis topic and working directly with the Gainesville Police De partment, we were able to gather significant information and details that we feel would not have been achiev ed through the formal interview process. We collected data available to th e public during informal interviews with key informants. We attended several meetings with professionals knowledgeable of our the subject, including: Deputy Executive Director of the Gainesville Housing Authority, Supervisory
63 Corporal of the Crime Analysis Unit at the Gainesville Police Department, Crime Prevention Officer of the Gainesville Police Department, and the GIS Specialist for the citys Public Works Department. The informal interviews not only al lowed the researcher to obtain documentation available to the public about th e subject, it provided insight rega rding the relationship between our selected environmental cues and the occurren ce of residential burglary. Questions related to the state of the landscaping and lighting as they related to the histor ical occurrence of each residential burglary were mentioned, but not disc ussed thoroughly due to a lack of historical knowledge relating to the state of both cues at the time of reported incidents. Discussions between the researcher and info rmants were completed in a professional manner, and the gathered information was docum ented. Subjects discussed within the informal conversations included: current city ordinanc es related to landscaping and lighting, the occurrence of residentia l burglary within the pub lic housing developments description of the selected housing developments, and the locations of all light fixtures, within our selected study and comparison areas, maintained by Gainesville Regional Utilities. Other key informants were identified through our informal discussions with selected professionals; however due to time restrictions, we did not have the ability to conduct interviews with all suggested informants. The informants we met with agreed to further contact, if needed to complete research. The researcher entered each interview with an overall topic to guide the informal interview; however no questions were prepared prior to the meetings. Open-ended questions were developed based on the responses received from the informants. Results of all interview findings were analyzed and compared to the documentation received from each informant and other documents obtained during the research process.
64 Observation The researcher selected the Caroline Manor de velopm ent to make comparisons with the Pine Meadows and Woodland Park developments, a ll of which are managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority, as study areas for the case study. See Figure 4-4 for a map of the selected developments locations. Escorted by law enforc ement, the researcher visited each selected public housing development during daytime and nighttime hours by automobile and foot, locating the point of entry for each selected case report and obse rving the current quality and proximity of landscaping and lighting as they relate to the possibility for surveillance. When analyzing the possibility for surveilla nce, we were concerned with ability of observation from the point of entry, as well as, ob serving the point of entr y from other locations. While we replaced the victimized unit numbers with surrogate numbers to pr otect the identity of the victims, the unit numbers remained within our reference material for locating units during our site visits. Points of entry were estimated based on the officer narratives in the case reports prior to site visits, visible si gns of forced entry and signs of repair during site visits, and suggestions from the escor ting law enforcement officer. Daytime Site Visit. During the daytime site visits7 to the selected developments, the researcher focused on analysis related specifically to landscapi ng, taking note of the possibility for observation and surveillance to occur. Employ ing GIS maps, the location of victimized units was identified. As previously mentioned, the major ity of the points of entr y were estimated from the officer narrative provided in the case report. 7 Daytime site visits to Pine Meadows and Woodland Park were conducted on September 18, 2009, approximately 11:00 am 1:00 pm. The researcher co nducted lighting and landscaping surveys in the numerical order of the unit numbers.
65 The researcher then conducted a physical landscaping survey, documenting the types of vegetation, height, density, and ability for survei llance of landscaping features located within close proximity, which we considered to be adjacent or up to thirty yards, of the victimized units and points of entry. Analysis was conducted, ex amining the potential relationship between the proximity and type of landscaping and our selected units points of entry. The research also observed lighting fixtures during daytime visits, taking note of the proximity of fixtures to the re sidential units and determining th e current state of the fixtures. Figures 4-11, 4-20, and 4-28 in the Findings secti on depict the placement of each lighting fixture within our study developments. The researcher completed a lighting survey, documenting the lighting fixtures, including exterior porch lights, within close proxi mity of the victimized units and points of entry. The researcher also documented the type of fixture, he ight of fixture, the direction the fixture was facing, the type of bulb and the type head of the fixture. While unable to gain an understanding of the li ghting quality during the day, we were able to select specific locations to further measure the quality of light ing, for our evening visit, based on the proximity of the lighting fixture to the vi ctimized units poi nts of entry. Evening Site Visit. Evening site visits8 to the selected developments and comparison development allowed the researcher to analy ze lighting and landscapi ng, while specifically focusing on lighting cues. With the assistance of law enforcement and employing a light meter, the researcher observed, measured, and documented the amount of light emitted from select light fixtures in relation to the points of entry for the victimized units. Light measurements were also 8 Evening site visits to Pine Meadows, Woodland Park, and Caroline Manor were conducted on September 23, 2009, approximately 8:00 10:00 pm. The researcher conducted lighting and landscaping surveys in the numerical order of the unit numbers.
66 collected in select locations of the development, indicated in Figures 410, 4-19, and 4-23 in the Findings section. The researcher also examined the landscaping during the evening site visits. While the researcher had some understanding of how lands caping might potentially interact with an offenders target selection and point of entry, visiting the site s in the darkness allowed the researcher and escorting law enforcement officer to visualize the potential ease or difficulty an offender would have when committing a burglary in the cover of darkness. The conducted physical lighting and landscaping surveys can be reviewed in the Findings section, Tables 4-1 through 4-6. Light meter readings were also taken underneath 6 light fixtures at each development. The readings occurred on differe nt sides of the property to determine the difference in lighting levels throughout the developments. Each site was photographed, concentrating most of the imagery on the lighting and landscaping within close proximity to the victimized units. Phot os were also taken of the estimated points of entry within the selected vi ctimized units. Select photographs were included in this document showing examples of upkeep to landscaping and lighting in proximity to the victimized units (whether minimal or acceptable to standards). Lack of lighting during evening visits in specific locations of the selected developments made it difficult to obtain images. Therefore, minimal evening site visit photographs are included as examples. Refer to the Figures in the Finding section to view examples of landscaping and lighting we observed during our site visits. Review of Documents Several documents were identified and ga thered for review a nd analysis after we completed the selection of our developments for our case study. Most of the documents pertained
67 to the location and layout of the developments. We also obtained information regarding policies strictly enforced within the developments. These documents include: City of Gainesville Code of Ordinances; Officer narratives for reported residential burglaries; Development name, locations, descriptions and number of bedrooms managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority; Pine Meadows and Woodland Park Site Maps; Tax parcels within the city of Gainesville; City of Gainesvilles 2000-2010 Future La nd Use Map, including 12/05, 12/06, and 12/07 amendments; and An automotive policy drafted by th e Gainesville Housing Authority By reviewing the documents, the researcher wa s able to determine the state of each study development and the surrounding area s at the time of victimization. The researcher determined when lighting fixtures were installed, maintained replaced, etc. More im portantly, the researcher was able to determine the type of lighting fixtur es being used within the selected public housing developments during our selected time frame. The researcher was also able to determine the re quired standards of both cues, as mandated in the governing Code of Ordinances. Analysis of Case Study The researcher rev iewed the Code of Ordinances for the City of Gainesville to identify any lighting and landscaping ordinances that have been implemented, or were implemented at the time of incidence, attempting to minimize or alter the occurrence of any type of criminal activity.
68 The researcher also compared the selected high-crime study devel opments with Caroline Manor, a GHA development that experienced a lower incidence of crime during our selected time frame. Analysis of Caroline Manor, a development similar in ch aracteristic, a nd a review of the physical surveys conducted at all selected de velopments allowed the researcher to gain an understanding of the occurrence of residential burglaries by identifying the differences in reported incidences, specifically in the role that lighting and landscaping might have played. To calculate the victimization rates for our deve lopments, the researcher employed the 2000 US Census, estimating that the average househol d contains 2.25 individua ls. To calculate the estimated population per each development, the average number of persons in a household was multiplied by the number of units in each de velopment. Population per 100,000 persons was calculated by dividing the estimated populat ion for each development by 100,000. Finally the residential burglary rates within our selected developments were calculated by subtracting the current number of incidences from the previous years number of incidenc es, dividing the answer by the estimated population per 100,000 persons. Next, the researcher created a two-block bu ffer around the selected developments of study, using GIS and the orthogonal layer. The number of reported residential bu rglaries within the buffer area was compared to th e overall occurrences within the housing developments. Using GIS, the researcher examined the locations of each reported residential burglary within the created buffer. The researcher also examined the land uses and demographic characteristics of the structures within the two-block buffer z one. Land uses within the created buffer were determined by examining the citys 2000-2010 future land use map. By examining the land use maps, the researcher estimated the types of pr operties that surrounded th e study areas. Existing land use maps effective between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008 were unavailable.
69 As previously mentioned the researcher conducted physical lighting and landscaping surveys during day and evening site visits. An alysis was completed on the conducted surveys by comparing the environmental cues within proximity of the points of en try within victimized units. The landscaping survey, as seen in Tabl es 4-4, 4-6, and 4-8, identified the type of landscaping9, height, density, distance to points of entry, and view obstruction. The lighting survey, as seen in Tables 4-5, 4-7, and 4-9, iden tified the number and types of lighting fixtures10, distance of light sources to the po ints of entry, mounted height of the fixtures, light measurement at 5 and ground level, type of bulbs, and type of fixture heads. Lighting also examined the cone of vision and coverage where applicable. We then analyzed the potential role that lighting and landscaping played in each incide nt, as it related to the estimated time and date of occurrence. The researcher also reviewed the attribute table within the light fixtures and light supports shapefiles, obtained from the citys Publ ic Works department, and compared it with the observed lighting fixtures within proximity of the victimized units points of entry. Our intentions were to compare requested work orde rs for repair, replacement, and installation of lighting fixtures. We intended to locate work or ders within the developm ent and during the time frame of January 2006 to December 2008. Our inten tion was to compare the victimization dates with the requested work orders. However, we were unable to obtain such documentation. Therefore, we made the assumption that all light ing fixtures within proximity to the points of entry were in working condition, and measurable at the same readings we obtained during our site visits. 9 The type of landscaping examined included: plantings, automobiles, and non-structural walls near the residence entrances. 10 The types of light fixtures examined included: street lights, and exterior house lights.
70 The researcher identified another low-income housing development within city limits that shared similar characteristics relate d to property size and number of units11. Rates of reported incidences were compared between the GHA pr operties and the low-in come properties. Our intention for comparing Tree Trail with our st udy developments was to understand if the victimization rates were different between th e different low-income housing developments. Summary After review ing and mapping the residential bur glary data and determining the location of the ten public housing developments managed by the GHA, the researcher selected two developments managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA), as the treatments sites. Selection of the study and comparison devel opments was made after determining the developments with the highest and lowest13 number of residential burglaries. GIS mapping analysis was completed, determining the proximity of residential burglaries within our selected developments to a surrounding two-block buffer area. The researcher also selected two control sites to examine the occurrence of residential burg laries, comparing them directly to our selected GHA study developments. The researcher developed the case study thr ough informal, unstructured interviews were conducted with several key informants, including law enforcement officials, directors of the GHA, and informants familiar with lighting work requests submitted during our time frame. Site visits were conducted, analyzing th e current state in proximity to the victimized units within our selected housing developments. During site visits, we completed an analysis of the victimized 11 (Personal conversation with Cpl. Jaime Kurnick, Crime Analysis Unit, Gainesville Police Department, September 21, 2009) 13 The two developments with the lowest amount of victimization, The 400 Building and Oak Park, were not selected as the comparison development due to the difference in unit type. Both study developments are single and duplex-family units. The 400 Building and Oak Park are high-rise apartment buildings.
71 units, taking note of proximity and maintenance of lighting and landscaping. Evening site visits were completed to gain an understanding of the qu ality of light at each point of entry. We also examined documentation regarding the types and locations of lighting fixt ures within our high and low-incidence selected developments and co mpared the incidence of residential burglaries for our selected developments with the occurr ence in other low-income housing developments.
72 Table 3-1. Gainesville Housing Authority Development Description A (1991) Bedrooms # of Units Description 0 1 2 3 4 5 101 Oak Park, 100 N.E. 8th Avenue Elderly Highrise, (Six Floors) Completed: May, 1970 60 40 1 101 The 400, 400 N.W. 1st Avenue Elderly Highrise, (Seven floors) Completed: February, 1979 101 70 Sunshine Park, 1901 N.W. 2nd Street Elderly Row Houses, (Single Story) Completed: May, 1971 70 100 Lake Terrace, S.E. 26th Terrace & Street Single and Duplex Family Units Completed: December, 1968 20 34 32 14 28 Caroline Manor, S.E. 25th Terrace Duplex Family Units Completed: April, 1970 28 80 Pine Meadows, 2626 East University Avenue Single & Duplex Family Units Completed: February, 1970 16 27 26 9 2 170 Woodland Park, 1900 S.E. 4th Street Single & Duplex Family Units Completed: February, 1970 34 58 54 16 8 36 Forest Pines, N.E. 25th Street & Terrace. & N.E. 26th Terrace. Single Family Units Acquired: March, 1971 4 32 53 Seminary Lane, 1019 N.W. 5th Avenue Duplex & Triplex Townhouse Units Completed: March, 1979 40 13 50 Eastwood Meadows, 925 S.E. 43rd Street Single Family Units Completed: May, 1981 47 3 Section 8 Existing Housing Rental Assistance Certificates (432) 8 100 220 83 21 Vouchers (402) 45 347 10 853 MOD Rehab. (19) 19 642 Total 68 426 774 265 67 42 Source: Gainesville Housing Authority, 1991
73 Table 3-2. Gainesville Housing Authority Development Description B (May 2009)15 Bedrooms Project # of Units Description 0 1 2 3 4 5 63-30 003 100 Lake Terrace, S.E. 26th Terrace & Street Single and Duplex Family Units Completed December, 1968 20 34 32 14 63-60 006 28 Caroline Manor, S.E. 25th Terrace Duplex Family Units Completed April, 1970 28 63-13 001 80 Pine Meadows, 2626 East University Avenue Single & Duplex Family Units Completed February, 1970 16 27 26 9 2 63-11 63-12 001 170 Woodland Park, 1900 S.E. 4th Street Single & Duplex Family Units Completed February, 1970 34 58 54 16 8 64-50 005 36 Forest Pines, N.E. 25th Street & Terrace & N.E. 26th Terrace Single Family Units Acquired March, 1971 4 32 63-70 007 50 Eastwood Meadows, 925 S.E. 43rd Street Single Family Units Completed: May, 1981 47 3 63-20 002 101 Oak Park, 100 N.E. 8th Avenue Elderly Highrise, (Six Floors) Completed: May, 1970 60 40 1 63-40 004 70 Sunshine Park, 1901 N.W. 2nd Street Elderly Row Houses, (Single Story) Completed: May, 1971 70 Section 8 Existing Housing Rental Assistance 1277 Housing Choice Vouchers Section 8 New Construction (Managed by GHA, owned by Gainesville Florida Housing Corporation, Inc.) 64-40 50 The 400, 400 N.W. 1st Avenue Elderly Highrise, (Seven floors) Completed: February, 1979 101 2013 Total 60 281 148 159 46 42 Source: Gainesville Housing Authority, 2009 15 Contact persons and information for development managers was omitted to protect their identity.
74 Figure 3-1. City-Wide Reported Resi dential Burglaries between 2006 and 2008. Source: Florida Geographic (FGDL), and the Gainesville Police Department (GPD).
75 Figure 3-2. Gainesville Hous ing Authority Properties Extracted from the Alachua County Property Appraisers Parcels. Sources: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and GPD.
76 Figure 3-3. Residential Burglary Occurrences in Gainesville Housing Development Properties Sources: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and GPD. Note: There were no burglaries recorded for Eastwood Meadows due to its location outside of the city limits. Burglaries may not appear at their exact incident location due to problems with geocoding.
77 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS & DISCUSSION Introduction This rese arch aims to establish the relations hip between lighting and landscaping cues as they relate to the occurrence of residential burglaries. Specifically, we aim to determine whether lighting and landscaping (or the lack of) had a role in incidences of residential burglary, within our selected developments, by minimizing or ma ximizing opportunities for surveillance by other users of the space. This chapte r provides the results of our analysis: (1) a summary of the Pinewood Meadows findings, including location of victimized units, landscaping, and lighting observations; (2); a summary of the Woodland Pa rk findings, including location of victimized units, landscaping, and lighting observations; (3) a summary of the reported residential burglaries within the Gainesville Housi ng Authority (GHA) properties a nd in close proximity; (4) a comparison of the Caroline Manor development to the selected study areas; (5) and comparison of our selected study developments with anothe r low-income housing development in the city. We conclude the section with a summ ary and discussion of our findings. As previously stated, we selected pub lic housing developments managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA) due to previous studie s suggesting that residential burglary rates are often ten time s higher within these areas. The public housing developments we selected are located in Gainesville, Florida a nd patrolled by the Gainesville Police Department (GPD). Gainesville, approximately 17,648 acres, is located in the middle of Alachua County, as shown in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-2 shows the locati on of Gainesville within Alachua County. The location of all GHA-managed developments is se en in Figure 4-3, while Figure 4-4 shows the location of our selected study developments and our low-incidence comparison development. Approximately 34% of the area within the Gain esville city limits is zoned residential.
78 Evaluation of Victimized Developments After gathering the case reports of all reporte d residential burglaries with in our time frame and determining the occurrences within public h ousing developments, we found that residential burglary rates were much lower, within all ten of the housing developments managed by the GHA, than we expected. Certain developments re ported as little as on e and three residential burglaries within the study time frame. Residential burglary rates within all of the GHA developments were close to the rates for the city, although they were lower per 100,000 people. While GHA residential burglary rate s were generally lower than the citys rates, we noted that the rates documented within our selected developm ents were significantly higher. Refer to Table 4-1 to review the burglary rates. Although the rate s are higher and the rate of change is much greater between our selected deve lopments and the calculated rate of change of the city, it is important to note that this is due to the smaller population wi thin the developments. A small change in the number of incide nces reported within the study developments creates a large difference in crime rates. For example, Pine Me adows reported a total of 9 residential burglaries within the time frame. Betw een 2006 and 2007 the rate increa sed by 100% and then decreased by 50% between 2007 and 2008. As we said before, th is is due to the low estimated population. Between 2006 and 2008, the city was victimized a reported 3,312 times, 39.3% of which occurred during the evening hours. During the same time frame, properties managed by the GHA reported a total of 64 incidences. A total of 31 reported incidences occurred within the boundaries of our two selected study developm ents, Pine Meadows and Woodland Park, while six total occurrences were reported within Ca roline Manor, our low-in cidence comparison site. Table 4-2 shows a breakdown of the reported inci dences per year for the GHA developments.
79 Residential Burglaries in our Study Developments Victimization rates within our selected developments were significantly less than reported incidences for Gainesville, Fl, result ing in only 1.9% of the city-wide residential burglaries. There were originally a total of 31 reported residential burglaries within our selected study areas, Pine Meadows and Woodland Park. Caroline Manor also experience six reported residential burglaries during the same time peri od. However, as we previously stated, the reported incidences were reviewed, paying special attention to the officer narrative. Reports that we reasoned to be domestic-in-nature were removed from the total occurrences. After determining the reported burgl aries occurrences we were re sponsible for examining, we determined that we were examining the occurren ce of 22 reported incide nces, 6 within Pinewood Meadows, 13 within Woodland Park, and 3 w ithin Caroline Manor, shown in Table 4-3. The Pine Meadows Development Development Profile. The Pine Meadows developm ent is a public housing development managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority. Lo cated at 2626 East University Avenue, the 80 single and duplex-unit development covers appr oximately 17.7 acres of land. The site is bounded by East University Avenue to the south, NE 25th Terrace to the west, wood frontage to the north, and Lofton High School and Morningside Nature Ce nter to the east. Shown in Figure 4-5, the single and duplex-unit developmen t is situated within the north east part of town. Major roads within close proximity include: Ea st University Avenue and NE 25th Street. Residents enter the development by way of NE 25th Terrace or NE 26th Terrace, directly north of East University Avenue. Several interior roadways run through the development including: NE 3rd Place, NE 2nd Place, NE 1st Place, and NE 26th Terrace. NE 26th Terrace serves as a divider between the two halves of the development.
80 Two other housing developments managed by the GHA, Lake Terrace and Caroline Manor, are situated directly sout h of our study development, on the south side of East University Avenue. As we previously discussed, we narrowed dow n the recorded occurrences of residential burglary based on their domestic-nature. GPDs Records Management Syst em (RMS) originally indicated a total of 12 reported residential burglaries within our se lected time fr ame. After we examined the officer narratives and removed select ed records, which we deemed to be domestic in nature, we were responsible for examini ng the occurrence of six residential burglaries. Location of Victimized Units. When we examined the site map of the Pine Meadows development, we immediately identified that all six selected case reports occurred on the east side of the development, as depicted in Figur e 4-6, which is separate d from the rest of the property by NE 26th Terrace. The east side of the development is bounded by several acres of wood frontage, separating Pinewood Meadows from Lofton High School and Morningside Nature Center. Even more importantly, all poi nts of entry (POE) occu rred within the rear communal area shared by groups of units. Refer to Figure 4-7 to view the approximate points of entry. Unit A, victimized in 2006, was entered via the north-east living room window at an unknown hour of the day. Unit B was victimi zed in 2007, also during unknown hours. The offender gained entry into the residence via the rear door. Unit C was victimized in 2008. It is unknown how the offender gained en try into the residence; howeve r it is known that entry was made during evening hours. Unit D, also victim ized in 2008, was entered by means of the south window during the day. All of the above-mentioned victimized units are si tuated around a large
81 communal area, which serves as a communal b ack yard for approximately 14 units, or 31 bedrooms, within the southeast portion of the site. Offenders gained entry into unit E, which was victimized a total of two times in a months span in 2007, both times via the north-east Bedr oom window. The victimized unit is situated farthest north-east within the eastern section of the development. The rear of the unit faces a fence and wood frontage. Landscape Survey. A landscape survey was conducted within Pine Meadows at the locations of victimized units. Because we were unable to obtain documentation regarding the maintenance of the landscaping, particularly vege tation, at the time of occurrence, we are unable to fully understand the exact state of the planti ngs within proximity of the victimized units points of entry. Therefore, our survey focuses on the current state of the proximal landscaping. Refer to Table 4-3 to view the landscape survey conducted during site vi sits and the features observed within the Pine Meadows development. Three instances of landscaping were in close proximity to the unit we identified as A. We observed vegetative landscapi ng, including a 4.5 bush and an approximately 45 tree that were minimally dense, that provided minimal vi ew obstruction during daytime hours, both to and from the point of entry. However, branches from the tree were as low as 4 from ground level, which did partial view obstruction. During evening site visits, we observe d that the combination of the landscaping features surrounding unit A onl y added to the opportunity for an offender to commit residential burglaries by providing added amounts of cover. We observed the primary entry of the residen ce to be situated approximately 10 away from the point of entry. The primary entrance is comprised of two non-structural walls creating a private entry way for the residence. The solid walls are approximatel y 8 feet tall, making
82 visibility from the front side of the residence and street, NE 1st Place, extremely difficult. Figure 4-8 illustrates the obstruction of visibility due to the solid non-structural walls. While our intention for the landscaping survey was to observe the landscaping in proximity to the point of entry for the reported incidenc es, we did take note of landscaping around our victimized units that we felt could become problematic in the future. One example of vegetative landscaping that could serve as dense cover to predators was situated on the southern side of unit A. The bushes directly in front of unit A a nd its adjacent unit are both extremely dense and extremely tall. View Figure 4-9 to see a phot o of the bushes we observed at the specified location. The bushes reached up to and above the 8 foot roof line, and were extremely dense, contributing to a high level of cover for offende rs, whom would possibly select the adjacent windows as target points of entry. The only example of landscaping in proxi mity to unit B was a tree, situated approximately 4 feet away from the estimated point of entry, the back door. While the tree minimally obstructed the view of the back door at the time of our site visit, we are unaware of the state of the tree in 2007, when the burglary occurred. Similar to every unit within our selected study developments, the victimized unit had two 8 foot un-structural walls that created a private entrance to the primary entryway of the re sident; however we feel that, due to its location from the point of entry, it was not influent ial in the offenders selection of target. We were unaware of the exact point of entr y within unit C, which was victimized during the evening hours. Therefore, it made it difficult to analyze landscaping in proximity to the point of entry. However, there are several landscaping elem ents that might have served as a cue to the offender in target selection. A minimally-dense tr ee, located approximately 10 feet from the rear porch and rear door, minimally obstructs the view of the rear door from any of the surrounding
83 units or the interior, communal space. As mentione d in all of the previous victimized units, we observed a non-load bearing wall th at contributed to minimal amount s of surveillability from the interior communal space. The wood line to the east is with in 18 yards of the south wind ow of victimized unit D, and contributes to a maximum obstructi on of view from the interior of the woods towards the point of entry. There is also a large oak tree approximately 20 yards aw ay from the point of entry; however its branches are, at minimum 30 feet in the air, and did not prov ide an obstruction of the view towards the point of entry at the time of our site visit. The layout of the unit allows the porch and exit to the porch to obstruct the view to several windows on the rear of the unit, from other units situated directly west. Unit E, the last unit that we observed in Pine Meadows, was victimized two times within a one-month span. Both incidences took place during daytime hours. As we previously mentioned, unit E is in the north-eastern most portion of th e east side of the development. The estimated point of entry was approximately 10 yards, or 30 feet, south of the northern wood line and 15 yards to the west of the eastern wood line. The wood line contributed to a moderate view obstruction to the points of entry from the woods. Even more importantly, the fence-line dividing the unit with the wood line has large areas in which people can climb beneath the fencing. Large amounts of debris allow us to believe that individuals use this as a footpath. Similar to unit D, the rear door and porch provide ample amounts of cover to many of the windows on the rear side of the unit. Refer to Figure 4-10 to view an example of the debris and holes in the fence Although our intentions were to observe th e possibility for automobiles, which we considered to be a part of landscaping, to obstr uct views to points of entry on our selected victimized, we found that there were no instances where automobiles would have played a role in
84 obstructing views thereby increa sing opportunities for offenders. B ecause all of the points of entry occurred at the exterior of the resi dence, typically within a communal backyard, automobiles, legally, would never be parked in these areas. We observe d numerous vehicles parked within driveways and on the sides of the streets. This is to be expected given the narrow and short driveways with the number of vehicl es that potentially resi de at the location. Lighting Survey. A lighting survey was conducted with in Pine Meadows at the locations of victimized units. We also employed a shapefil e of the light fixtures and supports that we acquired from the citys Public Works depart ment to locate and determine the types and characteristics of light fixtures within the deve lopment, which can be seen in Figure 4-11. Refer to Table 4-5 to view the lighting fixtures observed within th e Pine Meadows development. The only measurable light that we were able to obtain within proximity to the point of entry for victimized unit A was the exterior house light, located on the back porch of the residence. Positioned at the height of the door, approximately 6 feet high, and situated 11 feet from the north-east living room window, the inca ndescent light bulb provid ed inadequate light measure readings. We found light measurement readi ngs at 5 feet to be 0. 04 foot candles and at ground level, a minimal 0.01 foot candles. Exterior house lights, located next to the rear doors, of units B and C were in proximity to the point of entry the offender targeted on unit B, approximately 16 feet and 19 yards away from the point of entry. Similar to the majority of the units located in Pine Mea dows, the light fixtures are mounted at the door height, approximately 6 feet. Incandescent light bulbs are used in the porch fixtures to illuminate the immediate surrounding area. We found the light measurement readings to be the same as in unit A, 0.04 foot candles at 5 feet and 0.01 foot candles at ground level.
85 As previously mentioned, we were unable to determine the point of entry for victimized unit C. Therefore, we conducted th e survey at light fixtures with in proximity to the unit. We observed two exterior house lights, located at the main entry and rear porch, and a GRUmanaged street light, located approximately 30 yard s from the main entrance to the residence. A cobra head street light fixture was mounted to a GRU lighting structure, at 24 feet above ground level. According to the GRU light fixture shapefile, the street light fixture was installed in December of 2006. Although we are unaware of the wo rking condition of the light fixture at the time of incidence, we are aware that the lighting fixture was installed prio r to the residence being victimized, knowing that victimizat ion occurred in April of 2008. We gathered light meter readings at two locatio ns adjacent to unit C, the front of the house and the window furthest west on the south wall. Readings at the SW window measured at 0.06 at 5 feet above the ground and 0.02 at ground level, while readings in the area directly in front of the unit were .29 foot candles at 5 feet above the ground and .23 foot candles at ground level. We did not observe an exterior house light on th e rear of unit D, which was in proximity to the estimated point of entry. However, we observed a street light situated approximately 22 yards from the targeted entry. The stre et light is a mercury-vapor ya rd light mounted 24 feet above ground level, reaching 4 feet in a westerly direction. Again, we are unaware of the working status of the light fixture at the time of incidence; however when the researcher and law enforcement conducted their daytime site visit to Pine Meadows, they observed the head of the light fixture to be damaged, by what the research er would assume to be vandalism. Due to the non-working condition, at the time of each site vis it, light meter readings were only taken at ground level, which we determined to be 0.00 foot candles.
86 The last victimized unit of our study within the Pine Meadows development was unit E, which was victimized a total of two times with in a months span of 2007. The offender entered both times through the window located farthest NE in the unit. At the point of entry, we observed two light fixtures located within 30 yards. The exterior house light, located on the rear porch of the residence, was situated approximately 9 yard s away from the point of entry and the street light fixture, mounted at 24 feet and extending 4 feet in a SW direction, was situated 19 yards away from the point of entry. Light measurement readings taken at the point of entry were 0.05 foot candles at 5 feet above the groun d and 0.01 foot candles at ground level. Due to the east side of the development bei ng victimized more frequently than the west side, we chose to conduct light mete r readings at three separate locations within each side of the development. Measurements at those locations were taken directly underneath light fixtures managed by GRU. Refer to Figure 4-12 to see th e locations of the additional measurements taken. The three measurements taken on the east si de of the development at 5 feet above the ground averaged at 2.73 foot candles and 2.06 foot candles at ground level. Measurements taken on the west side of the development averaged around 2.71 foot candles at 5 feet above the ground at 2.05 foot candles at ground level. Light Survey Findings and City Ordinances. We found the lighting requirements, as dictated by the citys Code of Ordinances, to be minimal. The majority of the ordinances refer to the Illumination Engineering Society of No rth Americas (IESNA) Lighting Handbook, and can be viewed in Table A-1. The first applicable ordinance pertaining to li ghting in our setting discussed the exterior lighting, particularly as needed to provide secu rity to the area. Ordinances mandate that lightings horizontal illuminance average betw een 0.5 foot candles and 2.5 foot candles.
87 Horizontal illuminence was measured at 5 feet. Readings in proximity to our points of entry, documented during the site visit, indicated that the horizontal illuminance measured at two of the units were below the minimum 0.5 foot candles and three documented measurements were within the acceptable range. Measurements taken at the selected points in dicated in Figure 4-12 averaged at 2.06 foot candles at ground level and 2.72 foot candles at 5 feet within th e Pine Meadows development. Therefore, we found he measurements documented at selected points dir ectly beneath lighting fixtures managed by GRU at ground level were sl ightly above the maximum levels, while the horizontal illuminance was approximately .70 f oot candles higher than what is accepted. The Woodland Park Development Development Profile. Woodland Park, approxim ately 36.49 acres located at 1900 SE 4th Street, is a 170-unit development that is bound by SE Williston Road to the north, SE 4th Street to the east, patchy areas of trees to the south, and dense wood front age to the west. As evident in Figure 4-13, SE 1st Terrace and SE 4th Street serve as entrances to the single and duplex-unit development from SE Williston Road. Interior roadways of the development include: SE 19th Place, SE 20th Place, SE 20th Lane, and SE 3rd Terrace. The Gainesville Housing Authority officer is situated at the entr ance of Woodland Park, at SE 4th Street. For analysis purposes, the resear cher divided the site into th ree linear zones, spanning in a south-westerly to north-easterl y direction. Within each zone, groups of housing units, between 7 and 16, create little communities. The different groups of housing units often share a communal backyard. We identify groups of victimized un its based on their location within the property. Woodland Park originally was victimized a re ported 19 times, according to the RMS data. After we examined the officer narratives and gained an understanding for what occurred in each reported incidence, we removed six cases, le aving a total of 13 remaining opportunities for
88 observation and analysis; however, du e to requests from particular residents to not enter their property, we were unable to fully conduct both surveys. Location of Victimized Units. Upon examination the site map of the Woodland Park development in comparison with the reported reside ntial burglary data av ailable from RMS, we understood that there was an erratic pattern to the loca tion of the victimized units, spanning each of the researcher-created zones. The locations of the 13 selected reported incidences can be seen in Figure 4-14. Refer to Figure 4-15 to view th e points of entry of the victimized units. The researcher identified three victimized units, or four selected case reports, within what we established as zone one of the Woodland Park development. Unit A, s ited on the western part of the property and approximately 35 yards from Williston Road, was victimized in the evening of 2006 when an offender entered the reside nce via the north-wes t bedroom window. An offender gained entry to Unit B, also situated adjacent to Williston Road, during daytime hours in 2006 via the rear door. Similar to the units in Pi ne Meadows, the rear door is located off of a porch located in the rear of the residence. The rear of the residence, in this case, faces a northeasterly direction towards severa l other units. Unit C, victimized twice within 14 months, was entered via the same eastern bedroom window in both incidences. In 2007, the incidence took place in the evening hours; however the time of occurrence for the second incidences is unknown. A total of five victimized units and their points of entry were examined within zone two of the development. Unit H, victimized during the daytime hours in 2006, was entered through an unknown point of entry. In 2008, an offender gain ed entry into unit I by crawling through a window on the eastern side of the residence. It is unknown whether entry was gained during day or evening hours. Entry was gained into un it J during the evening hour s by entering through a
89 south-westerly window, facing the communal space for the group of units. Unit K was victimized twice in 2007. We ga thered reports that occurred in April and June. One of the incidences occurred during the day, while the other occurred during evening hours. In both cases, the offender entered the residence via the south-west bedroom window. While zone three saw no repeat victimizations, 75% of the occurrences within the south portion of the development occurred during evening hour s. Units D and G, victimized in 2007, were entered when an offender removed the window AC unit on a south-west window. Items were removed from the rear porches of unit E and G. Landscape Survey. A landscape survey was conducted within Woodland Park at the locations of victimized units. As we previously discussed, the survey conducted pertains to the current nature of the landscaping. We are unable to fully understand the exact state of the area at time of victimization; however, we are able to somewhat understand how the vegetation might have appeared at the time of incidence based on other examples of vegeta tive growth. Refer to Table 4-7 to view the landscap e features observed and documented within the Woodland Park development. As we previously discussed within the secti on regarding the location of each victimized unit, unit A was victimized when the offender ga ined entry to the NW bedroom window. Within proximity to the point of entry, we observed th ree instances of landscap ing that might obstruct the view to the point of entry from areas with in the development, as well as the adjacent Williston Road. A bush, approximately 5 tall, is s ituated directly adjacent to the point of entry creating a moderate obstruction of the view. Th ere are also several types of trees, ranging between 8 feet in height and 12 f eet, located within 5 yards of the point of entry. The majority of these trees minimally obstruct views; however, a tree sited directly adjacent to the north side of
90 the residence could potentially pose problems by providing cover for an offender to enter the residence at two separate entr y points without being visibly detected. The most problematic landscaping adjacent to unit A is the trees that separate the unit from Williston Road. The tree line, along with the wire fencing, moderately obst ructs the view to the point of entry. Figure 416, a map we obtained from Google Maps Street View, depicts the difficulty for surveillance to occur from the roadway towards the victimized unit. Landscaping adjacent to victimized unit B incl ude a very dense and large bush located 6 feet away from the rear door and the fence lin ed with trees, separating the development from Williston Road. The large bush, approximately 6 feet tall, covers several windows and obstructs the view of the rear door from the northern mo st part of the unit almost entirely, allowing perpetrators adequate cover a nd minimized surveillability. While the tree line is an adequate distance from the point of entry, any opportunities for surveillance to occur is minimized due to the height of the lower branches and the dens ity of the foliage. Even more importantly, we observed an opening in the fence, separating the development from Williston Road, within proximity to the units northern wall, allowing easy access to the development and unit, as seen in Figure 4-17. Unit C, victimized in 2007 and 2008, had no landscaping within proximity to the point of entry. Because entry was gained at the rear of the residence, facing toward the communal greenscape, there was no legal ab ility for automobiles to obstruc t the view to the window at which the offender gained entry. And although the fence and tree line are a far distance from the victimized unit, the density of vegetation minimizes the opportunity to observe the area from the roadway.
91 The offender gained entry to unit D by rem oving the AC unit in the south west bedroom window during the evening hours of 2007. Within proxi mity to the point of entry is a tree-line running along the fence line that divides Woodla nd Park with the adjacent parcel of land and a row of bushes dividing unit D and a unit directly to the east. The view to the point of entry is severely obstructed from the sout h side of the fenced area due to dense foliage spanning the entire height of the fence, which can be seen in Figure 4-18. The bushes, approximately 6 yards away from the point of entry, separating unit D and the adjacent unit to the east minimizes the ability to observe the victimized unit from the in terior and exterior of the adjacent unit. The unstructural wall, which was previously discu ssed in the landscaping findings for the Pine Meadows development, that enclose the main entrance to the residence provides maximum coverage of the property dire ctly in rear of the victim ized unit from the roadway. Due to residents requests for us not to en ter the property surrounding their units, we were unable to conduct a complete landscaping survey on victimized units E and F. However, we were able to conduct a minimal survey on both units from within the escorting law enforcements patrol car and by examining th e 2005 orthogonal image layer acquired from GPDs Tracking Map. We were unable to determine landscaping with in proximity to the points of entry for units E and F, due to it being victimized by offenders removing items from the rear porches. We did however, observe vegetation within the front of each residential unit that might potentially obstruct the view of select windows on the front of the re sidence, running along SE 20th Lane. Vegetation was moderately dense and between 5 feet and 7 feet ta ll in some locations. The offender gained entry into victimized unit G by removing the AC window unit on the south-west bedroom window. The point of entry faces the rear communal space shared by 16 units. Our landscaping survey observed one inst ance of landscaping th at could potentially
92 obstruct the view of an offender gaining entry of the victimized unit at th e point of entry. Similar to instances observed in both Pine Meadow s and Woodland Park, the non-structural wall employed to create a private entrance to the main entry may potentially obstruct the potential opportunities for surveillance due to its height and solidity. As we previously discussed, we were unable to estimate a point of entry to victimized unit H from the officer narratives or visible signs of force entry during the site visits. Therefore we noted several areas were opportunities for su rveillance to occur might be compromised. Approximately 6 yards separates unit H with the un it directly west. Both units have the 8 foot non-structural wall, used to create private entr ies, which both extend approximately 10 from the roofline of each unit, leaving approximately 8 for surveillance to occur from SE 19th place. There are also a few trees and bushes surrounding unit H, all of which minimally contribute to the obstructed view of numerous areas that might have served as the poin t of entry when the unit was victimized. The east window served as the point of entry within victimized unit I, which faces inwards to a communal yard shared by 14 units. The tree s within the communal greenspace are all very tall oak trees that do not obstruct the cone of vision because the branches are, at minimum, 40 feet above the ground. Therefore, these trees would provide minimal cover to an offender gaining entry at the east window of the victimized unit. While we were unable to locate any landscaping that might have moderately or grea tly contributed to an offender gaining entry by providing an obstruction and creatin g cover, we did take note of extremely dense bushes on the west side of the residence r eaching up to the roofline. The only landscaping within proximity to the point of entry at unit J was a bush approximately 18 tall, situated directly underneath the north-western windows of the unit. It is
93 possible that the jog in the build ing, created due to the porch extending out may have contributed to entry gained within the unit. The vegetation situated at th e north-western windows currently provides minimal opportunities for cover to an offender. The last victimized unit with in the Woodland Park develo pment was unit K, which was victimized twice in 2007. Entry was gained, bot h times, when the offender broke in through a window located near the northern part of the unit. Because there were two windows in the general area, we were unable to completely gain knowledge of the exact poi nt of entry; however, we estimated the POE to be the southern of the two windows due to the obstruction of view created by an extremely dense and tall bush situat ed directly adjacent to the window. An image shown in Figure 4-19 depicts the state of the unit and surrounding vegetation during the daytime site visit, conducted September 18, 2009. Lighting Survey. The researcher conduc ted a lighting su rvey in Woodland Park at the locations of victimized units. Light readings were taken at all but two units, which was due to the residents requests to not ente r their property. Although certain re ported residential burglaries occurred during the daytime hours, we chose to conduc t light readings at thei r points of entry to further gain an understanding of how lighting coul d potentially play a role in future acts of victimization. Refer to Figure 4-20 and Table 47 to review the lighting fixture locations, observations made, and measurements documente d within the Woodland Park development. Adjacent to unit As north-west bedroom windo w, which was the point of entry in the evening of 2006, we observed two GRU-managed street lights within close proximity. We obtained light measurement readings at the point of entry, from the adjacent street lighting fixtures. The first fixture, a cobr a head type fixture mounted at 30 high and situated adjacent to Williston Road, extends approximately 10 in th e north-west direction. According to the GRU
94 light fixture shapefile, the fixtur e, located 29 yards from the POE, was installed one month prior to victimization. The second fixtur e, located approximately 20 yard s from the point of entry, is also a cobra head street lighti ng fixture mounted in a south-easterly direction. The light meter measured the lighting levels to be 0.38 foot candl es at 5 feet high and 0.3 1 foot candles at ground level. We observed a cobra head stre et light approximately 17 yard s east of unit Bs point of entry, victimized during the daytime hours of 2007, which is depicted in Figure 4-21. As we previously mentioned, the point of entry was the rear door at the rear por ch, located on the east side. Light measure readings indica ted light levels to be 0.05 foot candles at 5 feet off the ground and 0.01 foot candles at ground level. We also obs erved an exterior house light located next to the door on the rear porch; however, it was inoperab le at the time of our evening site visit. Unit C became a victim to residential bur glaries in October of 2007 and December of 2008. In at least one occurrence, the offender gain ed entry during the evening hours; and in both incidences, the offender gained entry into the house through the nor th-east window. Lighting from the exterior house light on the rear porch, located approximately 4 yards away was the only light that affected the light meas urements of 0.05 foot candles at 5 feet and 0.01 foot candles at ground level. Similar to all of th e exterior house lights, the fixture had a dome cover and an incandescent light bulb. We also observed a str eet light in the communal rear greenspace; however, it was located 41 yards away from the poi nt of entry for both incidences and therefore we did not include it within our survey. We documented two light fixtures with proximity of unit D, which was entered by removing the AC window unit from the SW bedr oom window, possibly dur ing evening hours. We observed a street light, posit ioned approximately 28 yards from the point of entry; however
95 after examining the attribute table for the GRU light fixture shapefile, we found that the light fixture was installed seven months after the repo rted burglary occurred. We also documented the characteristic exterior house light located at the rear porch. Light meas ure readings indicated levels to be 0.31 foot candles at 5 f eet and 0.24 foot candles at ground level. Residents from units E and F requested that we not conduct our surveys by entering their yard. Therefore, we were unable to collect light quantity measuremen ts for these units. Still, with the use of the GRU light fixture shapefile, we determined that unit E has two street lights, located between 25 and 30 yards from the rear ope n porch. The fixture to the south is mounted in a south-east direction, pointing aw ay from the point of entry, while the fixture to the north is positioned in an easterly direction. Both fixtures are mounted at 24 above the ground. We are unable to determine the date of in stallation for either fixture becau se there is a null value within the attribute table. The GRU shapefile indicates that there are no fixtures in direct proximity with the open rear porch of unit F. There is, however, a street light within 15 yards of the main entrance, but records show that it was installed in D ecember of 2006, approximately one month after victimization. Based on previous observations at the rear side of the residences, we would assume that both units rear porches have por ch lights on the exterior of the house, which became characteristic of the developments we studied throughout our research process. We observed one street light wi thin proximity of unit Gs point of entry, victimized during evening hours in 2007.We documented one street light within 27.5 yards, mounted at 24 and facing an easterly direction, and the typical exterior porch light. The two light sources combined, measured at 0.29 foot candles at 5 feet above ground and 0.23 foot candles at ground level.
96 We conducted our lighting survey on unit H, although we were unable to determine an estimated point of entry. We docum ented two street lights within close proximity to the unit and two exterior house lights, one loca ted at the main entrance to the residence and the other at the rear porch. Although we are unable to determine the point of entry, we do know that the incident occurring during daytime hours. Therefore, we have the reason to assume that entry was gained at the rear of the house, where maximum cove r would have been provided. Because of this reason, we took light measurements at the rear of the house, near the porch. The light meter showed that the lighting levels were 0.19 foot candles at 5 f eet above the ground at 0.13 foot candles at ground level. In proximity to the next victimized unit we surveyed, unit I, we f ound no street lighting within close proximity. Although there was an exterior house light located just over 6 yards away from the east point of entry. We did observe a lighting fixture mana ged by GRU within the center of the communal backyard, shared by 14 un its; however it was sited almost 37 yards away from the point of entry. We collected and docum ented the amount of light levels at 0.21 foot candles at 5 feet and 0.17 f oot candles at ground level. Unit J was victimized during an evening in 2006 when an offender entered the south-west window. Within proximity to the estimated point of entry, we observed on e street light, located 27 yards to the north-west and the characteristic rear porch light. The street light, a cobra head fixture, was mounted at 24 facing in the direction of the unit. We measured the light levels to be 0.31 foot candles at 5 feet and 0.23 foot candles at ground level. We also observed a mercuryvapor lighting fixture on the opposite side of the unit, which can be seen in Figure 4-22; however, we understand that the light emitted from the fixture did not contribute to any light quantity readings.
97 Our final unit that we select ed to gather information through conducted surveys was unit K, victimized twice within two months of 2007. In both occurrences, the offender gained entry through the south-west bedroom wi ndow. The only light we documented within 30 yards of the point of entry was the rear porch light. There were two street light fixtures visible from the point of entry, one to the north and one to the south-we st; however, both of the fixtures were more than 30 yards away from the point of entry. The porch light, located 5 yards away, emitted light to produce 0.03 foot candles at 5 feet and 0.01 foot candles at ground level. During the evening site visit, we attempted to photograph the lighting quality; however due to low lighting it became extremely difficult. Th erefore, we were only able to include one evening site visit photograph, whic h can be seen in Figure 4-23. We also documented light measurements at select locations thr oughout the development, directly underneath street lighti ng fixtures. Refer to Figure 4-24 to see the locations where we documented additional light measurements. We av eraged the measurements at 5 feet and ground level. We found that light measurements aver aged 2.73 foot candles at 5 feet and 2.06 foot candles at ground level within what we established as zone 1, or the northern portion of the development. Light measurements in zone 2, or the middle of the development, averaged 2.70 foot candles at 5 feet and 2.04 foot candles at ground level. The southern part of the development also deemed zone 3, averaged 2.71 foot candles at 5 feet and 2.06 foot candles at ground level. Light Survey Findings and City Ordinances. We also made a comparison of the light measurements that we documented in Woodland Pa rk with the citys light ing ordinances. Similar to Pine Meadows, the lighting measurements we collected were mostly influenced by exterior house lights; however we did observe a few street lights within proximity to our points of entry. The majority of the light intensity measurements taken ranged between low and acceptable.
98 Measurements gathered ranged between 0.04 foot candles and 0.38 foot candles at 5 feet, the horizontal illuminance. We also documented measurements as low as 0.01 at ground level in the Woodland Park development. Two of the units did not meet the mandated minimum 0.05 foot candles measurement, while the rest of the measurements fell into the allowable range. While the majority of the measurements fell within the acceptable range, vision during the evening hours at the victimi zed units was often difficult. As we did in Pine Meadows, we conducted light measurements at vari ous points, indicated in Figure 4-24, directly beneath se lected street light fixtures. Our average measurement that we found between the three an alysis zones was 2.71 at 5 feet and 2.06 at ground level. Therefore, we concluded that the average ligh ting level throughout the Woodland Park were slightly higher than what is recommended by the governing ordinances. We also determined that all fixtures, both GRU-managed street light s and exterior house lights, were conforming to the citys Code of Ordinances re garding the mounted heights of fixtures. Section 30-345.b.8 part d of the citys or dinance states that the maximum height of light fixtures, except as otherwis e regulated by this section, shall not exceed 30 feet. All light fixtures within the development were doc umented at 30 feet, 24 feet, and 6 feet. The Caroline Manor Development Development Profile. Profile Caroline Manor, 14 duplex buildi ngs or 28 units, is located at SE 25th Terrace. The 4.49 acres are si ted directly adjacent to Ea st University Avenue and across the street from our study development, Pine Meadows. Refer to Figure 4-5 to see Caroline Manors location, as positioned southwest of Pine Meadows. The development is bounded by Lake Terrace, another GHA development, to the east, dense woods to the west and south, and East University to the north. The development is divided by SE 25th Terrace into two equal sections.
99 We observed that the development was comprised of duplex units, making it fairly similar to our other selected study developments; how ever groups of units did not share a communal backyard as we saw in Pine Meadows and Woodland Park. Records Management System (RMS) indicated that Caroline Manor was victimized a total of six times between January 2006 and December 2008; how ever after reviewing the officer narratives from the case reports, we selected a total of thre e reports to compare with the selected burglaries within our other selected study developments. Location of Victimized Units. We examined and compared Ca roline Manor to the records we extracted from RMS. We immediately identifi ed that each of the selected cases we were analyzing occurred on the west si de of the development, directly adjacent to the dense woods. Refer to Figures 4-25 and 4-26 to view the locati ons of the victimized uni ts and their points of entry. We also noticed that one of our analysis units was victimized twice during the time frame. Victimized unit A, the furthest north of our tw o selected units, was victimized in November or December of 2006 and again in April of 2007. RMS da ta suggested that one of the incidences occurred during the evening hours, while an approximate time of day was not able to be determined for the other occurrence. In both inst ances, the offender gained entry by means of the rear door. Unit B, victimized th ree days before unit As second victimization, occurred during the day. Similar to unit A, the offender entere d the residence through th e rear door. The rear doors of both units are situated approximately 20 ya rds from the wood line at the west side of the property. Landscape Survey. We conducted our landscaping survey at the points of entry on our two victimized units. As previously mentioned, both units were approximately 20 yards from the wood line on the west side of the development. Due to the density and height of the wood line
100 directly behind unit A, the opportunity for observati on to occur from the interior woods or from the point of entry towards the w oods was extremely difficult. Within proximity to unit A, we also documented several trees, between 11 and 20 yards. All of the trees, other than the woods, were moderately dense and therefore mo derately obstructed the views towards the point of entry from the west side of the units within a reasonabl e distance. There were a few bushes located around the rear porch area; however due to their minimal height and density, they provided minimal obstruction the point of entry. The wood line located 20 yards away from unit B is less dense than the area directly behind unit A. Using our orthogonal image layer in our GIS map, we observe d, what appeared to be, a retention pond approximately 43 yards away from the rear door. Due to the location of the small body of water, the wood line is less dense th an the area a few yards north. Nevertheless, the wood line continued to contribute to an obstruc ted view of the rear porch from within the woods. We also documented a 40 foot tree within seven yards of the point of entry and several bushes around the porch area. However, we feel that neither of these landscaping elements contributed to a significant obstructe d view at the time of incidence. Other landscaping elements we observed thr oughout the Caroline Manor units were halfwalls. The brick placements were staggered in patte rn, creating more of a sc reen, rather than an actual wall. The front of the residence also co ntained the same sort of design; however it continued the height of the house. While we doc umented the half-walls within our landscaping survey, we feel that they did not contribute to the occu rrence of residential bur glaries due to their locations on the sides of the house, at the north an d south ends. Figure 4-27 helps to illustrate the characteristic of the half -wall, located on each unit.
101 Lighting Survey. We conducted our lighting survey at the points of entry, documenting all of the lighting within proxim ity. The only lighting fixtures obs erved within proximity to the points of entry on both victimized units were th e exterior house lights, which we found to be characteristic of the Gainesville Housing Au thority developments. The closest GRU-managed street light was located one bu ilding south from unit B, approximately 40 yards away. There was a street light in front of unit B; however there is no evidence to s uggest that the lig hting from the fixture contributed to any of our obtained light measurements. Re view Figure 4-28 to observe the location of the street light fi xtures within Caroline Manor. At the rear door of unit A, we collected li ghting measurements at 5 feet above the ground and at ground level. We found that light levels were 0.13 foot candles at 5 feet and 0.08 foot candles at ground level. At unit B, our measurem ents collected included 0.15 foot candles at 5 feet and 0.11 foot candles at ground level. Th erefore, measurements fell within acceptable standards; however visibility was extremely difficult. Light Survey Findings and City Ordinances. As we did in the other developments, we measured the intensity of the street lights, as we stood beneath the fixtur es. Figure 4-29 indicates the locations where we gathered the additional light intensity measurement. Lighting in the Caroline Manor development was adequate arou nd light fixtures located adjacent to SE 25th Terrace, as defined by the citys ordinances. We collected the light intensity measurements at three separate locations and averaged the measur ements to gain a better understanding of the standard lighting levels. We calcu lated the average light intensity measurement, directly beneath street light fixtures, to be 2.69 foot candles at 5 feet and 2.01 f oot candles at ground level, and 2.01 foot candles at ground level. Similar to the measurements collected from the other developments, we determined that the measurements were slightly above the maximum allowed
102 illumination, and therefore did not comply with the lighting standards mandated by the Code of Ordinances. Secondly, the mounted heights of all of the observed light fixt ures within the development were below the maximum allowed height of 30 While the GRU GIS shapefile did not include the height that the fixtures were mounted within the Caroline Manor develo pment, we were able to determine the heights of all of the fixtures, based on previous observations of lighting fixtures in the other developments. Comparing the Residential Burglaries As previously mentioned, employing GIS, we created a buffer around each development, approximately two blocks, creati ng a boundary in which we studied the locations of residential burglaries and the land uses at t hose locations. Our purpose behind th is analysis was to determine if there were any similarities between the incidenc es compared to the reported incidences within our developments, and if the rates were higher within the buffers and another low-income highcrime housing developments. The Pine Meadows Buffer Reported Residentia l Burglaries. We created a two-bloc k buffer around the Pine Meadows development as a means to compare th e incidences within our development to the incidences within proximity. The two-block bu ffer created around the development established 175 acres for which we were responsible for ex amining the occurrence of reported residential burglaries and the land uses of th e victimized properties. After clipping the city-wide burglaries to the buffer around Pine Meadows, we established that there were 171 residential burglaries that occurred between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008, which can be seen in Figure 4-30. 1 The calculated number of reported residential burglaries within the two-block buffer does not include the 16 reported incidences at Pine Meadows.
103 The map depicts all of the residential burglaries within the buffer, including all of the reported incidences within Pine Meadows. The first thing we noticed after extracting the residential burglaries in our Pine Meadows buffer was that all of the reported incidences occurred to the west and to the south, directly across the street in the other GHA developments. There were a total of thr ee reported incidences to the west of the study development. All of th e victimized units were easily accessible from Pine Meadows by way of NE 3rd Place, which extends from the interior of our development directly into the adjacent nei ghborhood in which the reported incidences occurred. Referring to the attribute table from the data extracted from RMS, we knew that the residential burglaries to the west of our study development occurred during 2007 and 2008, two of which transpired during the evening hours. Eight other incidences occurred within the Lake Terrace development, which is located directly south of Pine Meadows and adjacen t to Caroline Manor, our low-crime comparison development. There were three incidences in 2006, between May and November; two incidences, January and November, occurred during 2007; and three incidences between February and November of 2008. Approximately ha lf of the reported inci dences occurred during the evening hours. We also observed the six reside ntial burglaries within the Caroline Manor, the low-incident development we examined. We identified that f our of the reported in cidences occurred during the evening hours. Land Uses of the Pine Meadows Buffer. We identified seven different types of land uses within our extracted two-block buffer around Pine Meadows, includ ing: conservation, education, public facilities, recreation, residential-low density, residential-medium density, and single
104 family housing, as seen in Figure 4-31. Be tween January 2006 and December 2008, Pine Meadows land use was residentialmedium dens ity with a small amount of recreational land use at the southwest portion of the parcel, accordi ng to the 2000-2010 Future Land Use. The land use for Caroline Manor was single family. The remainder of our residential burglaries occurred within two di fferent land uses. The three occurrences to the west of Pine Meadows we re single family land use. Lake Terrace, the GHA development adjacent to Caroline Manor an d across the street from Pine Meadows, was designated residentialmedium density land use. The Woodland Park Buffer Reported Residentia l Burglaries. Using GIS, we created a buffer around the Woodland Park development, approximately two street bl ocks. The buffer established 294.7 acres for which we examined the reported residential bur glaries occurring betw een 2006 and 2008. We found that there were a total of 15 residential burglaries that occurred within proximal distance to our development, not including the 19 total reported incidences within Woodland Park, which can be seen in Figure 4-32. All of the reported incidences occurred to the west of Woodl and Park. We also noted cases of repeat victimization. To the northwest, we examined seven burglaries that occurred during the study time frame. Two of the incidences occurred during the evening hours. We also found that the majority of the occurrences to the northwe st of our study development to be directly accessible from Williston Road. Directly west of our development, GPDs R ecords Management System (RMS) indicated a total of four residential burglaries between 2006 and 2008. While we were unable to determine a precise date and time of incidence for one of th e occurrences, we did unde rstand that two of the
105 four incidences occurred during the daytime hours. The victimized houses are all sited within one acre of land. To the southwest of Woodland Park, we f ound four reported residential burglaries, according to RMS. In the Pines, one of the apar tment complexes in the area was victimized three times, once in 2007 and twice in 2008. The fourth incidence occurred at Tree House Village, another apartment community in the area. Land Uses of the Woodland Park Buffer. After examining the 2000-2010 Future Land Use Map of the buffered area around Woodland Park, we identified eight different types of land uses, including: commercial, industrial, mixed us ed-low, public facilities recreation, residentiallow density, residential-medium density, and sing le family housing. We determined the land use for Woodland Park to be residential-medium density, and can be seen in Figure 4-33. The remainder of our residential burglaries occurred within three different land uses. We identified the land use of the victimized residenc es to the northwest of our study development to be single family. The land use for the four inci dences directly west was residential-medium density. Similar to Woodland Park, the apartment complexes that were victimized to the southwest of our development were residentialmedium density. Residential Burglaries of Tree Trail Low-Income Housing Development We analyzed the reported residential burglarie s within Tre e Trail apartments, which is a notoriously high-crime low-income community s ituated at the northwest corner of NE 23rd Avenue and NW 9th Street. Refer to Figure 4-35 to view the location of the Tree Trail complex. Similar to our analysis of the burglaries and land uses within the developments buffers, our intention was to compare the occurrence of resi dential burglaries to ou r selected victimized developments. By examining the reported incidences in Tree Trail apartments, we were able to determine the rates of residential burglaries, in comparison to the rates within our developments.
106 The Tree Trail development is comprised of 10 8 units, in 8 separate apartment buildings. The 2000 US Census estimated the average housi ng size in Gainesville to be 2.25 persons per household. Therefore, we estimated Tree Trail to have 270 individuals living within the development. GPDs RMS indicated that 21 residential burglaries occurred in the Tree Trail development between January 1, 2006 and Decemb er 31, 2008. There were also three units that became victims of repeat burglaries. We provided th e rate of residential burglary change in Table 4-1 for the three years. In 2006, there were six re ported burglaries, half of which occurred during the daytime hours. The Gainesville Police Department responded to four Tree Trail residential burglary calls in 2007. 2008 was the most active y ear for residential burglaries, accounting for eleven of the total re ports. Seven of the 2008 burglaries occurred during the evening hours. Discussion of Findings Lighting and Landscaping Cues Pert aining to Residential Burglaries The purpose of properly m aintaining the lands caping and lighting within any environment, particularly in public housing de velopments, where studies previous ly suggested that crime rates tend to be higher, is to increase the act of surveillance, thereby decreasing the opportunity and occurrences of criminal activity, in our case, residential burglaries. Our physical surveys were unable to fully suggest correlations between lighting and landscaping, as they relate to the likelihood of residential burglar ies. Due to our study population size, we felt there was not enough numerical data to statistically corr oborate our hypothesis, suggesting that lighting and landscaping cues are directly related to the occurrence of residential burglaries. Our observations of Pine Meadows and Woodland Park, and the comparison of our low-incident development, Caroline Manor, how ever did deduce that the majority of the victimized units had problematic elements to their lighting and la ndscaping within close
107 proximity, contributing to a lack of surveillability at the point of entry, and possibly contributing to victimization of the units. However, we al so observed problematic landscaping and lighting elements within proximal distance to non-victimized units, as is evident in Figure 4-9. This made us curious as to why our study uni ts were selected by offenders to victimize, rather than other locations within the developments that would have potentially obstructed the view more at the point of entry. During the daytime site visits to Pine Meadows and Woodland Park, we observed and documented the lighting and landscaping with in proximal distance to the majority of our points of entry. Earlier in the chap ter, we discussed those elements we found to be problematic to the ability for surveillance to occur, there by reducing the number of burglaries. Table 4-11 summarizes our findings for th e Gainesville Housing Author ity Developments observed. The majority of the victimized units we surveyed had some sort of landscaping element, such as vegetation or non-structural walls that created secluded en tryways, which highly obstructed the view to and from the points of entry. However, we also found that specific examples of landscaping that contributed to the beautification of the unit, rather than obstructing the view of the entry points. For example, on the west side of Woodland Parks unit J, we documented partially maintained Alligator Plants near the two northwestern windows, depicted in Figure 4-34. Their density and height were minimal. We felt that these plants did not excessively obstruct the view of either window, which could have se rved as a point of entry to the offender. While we examined the automobile parking policy distributed to the residents by the Gainesville Housing Authority, we felt that, due to the location of the points of entry on the victimized units, there was a low probability th at automobiles were parked in the general vicinity, obstructing the views of the vi ctimized units.
108 We feel that the lack of surveillability at th e victimized units points of entry played a large role in the reported occurrences Each of the victimized units was entered through a specific location in which the predator c ould not be observed from the street. Most of the entries occurred within proximity to the communal back yards. The other reported incide nces took place where the victimized units were located adjacent to moderately and heavily dense wood lines, contributing to maximum obstruction of surveillability at the points of entry. We were not able to determine the exact am ount of lighting cast on each victimized unit during the daytime site visits; however we were able to determine that there were three types of lighting fixtures within the developments: exterior house lights, cobra head street light fixtures, and the mercury-vapor outdoor secur ity lights. The majority of the victimized units had exterior house lights near the points of entr y, in the rear of the residences However, we observed there to be a lack of street lighting fixt ures within proximity to all of the estimated points of entry. Evening site visits confirmed our observations of the density and heights of the surrounding landscaping elements c ontributing to minimal amounts of surveillability at the majority of the points of entry. Most vegetati on needed to be trimmed back and thinned out. Several trees also needed to have their lower branches cut to a minimum of 7 feet above the ground to increase the opport unities for surveillance. Although we were pleased with the light m easurements, taken in each development, beneath the street light fixtures which were in the range of 2.69 to 2.75 foot candles at 5 feet above the ground and between 2.01 and 2.06 foot ca ndles at ground level, we were disturbed with the remainder of our measur ements. The majority of our light intensity readings, taken at the points of entry within our developments, we re significantly below lighting standards, as suggested by the Illumination Engineering So ciety of North Americas (IESNA) RP-20-98.
109 Intrinsically dark areas are recommended to average 1.00 foot candle, with a maximum of 4.00 foot candles, at ground level, according to IESNA. Because the Code of Ordinances does not mandate the minimum acceptable levels of lighting illumination and intensity, the current lighting appears to be acceptable, both to th e City and the Gainesville Housing Authority. Although acceptable to the minimu m lighting standards as mandate d by the Code of Ordinances, we found the amount of lighting provided by the onl y light fixtures within proximal distance to the points of entry to be mini mal and inadequate, at best. Without studying a larger victimized population, it would be difficult to infer an exact relationship, based strictly on the light meas urements gathered and landscaping elements observed within proximity to the victimized units. Although we are unable to infer an exact relationship between our cues and the victims, we do agree that it is highly unlikely that the studied occurrences were ju st random criminal acts. Victimized Residences within Buffers The purpose for com paring the victimized residences within the buffers surrounding the study developments was to determine whether there was a similarity in the rate of occurrence. We extracted 29 residential burglaries within the buffer created around the Pine Meadows development. Pine Meadows was victimized a to tal of 12 times, six incidences of which we examined. We examined three of the six reported incidences that occurred in Caroline Manor. Lake Terrace, the third GHA development in th e immediate vicinity of our selected study development, was victimized a total of eight time between January 2006 and December 2008. The remaining three reported incide nces occurred in the single fam ily land use area directly west of Pine Meadows. There were a total of 34 residential burglaries that occurred between 2006 and 2008, within the buffer surrounding Woodland Park. Although we examined thirteen incidences within the
110 development, 19 of the reported residential burglarie s, or 55.9% of the total burglaries within the buffer, occurred in the Woodland Park developmen t. Our findings for both developments and buffer areas suggest that victim ization was just as likely to occur within the public housing development as the proximal surrounding areas. The Tree Trail Complex We co mpared the reported residential burglar ies within our selected GHA developments to Tree Trail Apartments, a low-income high-crime de velopment on the northeast side of town. Our intention was to determine whether the rate of occurrence within our development was similar to other low-income housing developments, not ma naged by the Gainesville Housing Authority. Eighteen different units were victimized in Tree Trail Apartment between 2006 and 2008, three of which were victimized multiple times. We calculated the victimiza tion rate, as discussed within the methodology section, for the th ree years ranged between 2,469 and 4,527 per 100,000 inhabitants. Our findings sugge sted that the Tree Trail Apartm ents was more likely to be victimized as a low-income development. Comparing Gainesville Housing Authority Developments Although the developm ent was significantly sma ller than study developments and there were only a total of 6 reported residential burglaries during our time frame, the victimization rates within Caroline Manor were typically higher than the rates occurring in Pine Meadows and Woodland Park. The escorting law enforcement c ontributed the lower number of occurrences to the proximal distance of the surrounding public housing developments that were much larger in size. His belief was that criminals lived in one development while committing criminal activities in the adjacent developments2. 2 Information from a conversation held with Officer. Er nest Graham, GPD Crime Prev ention Officer, September 23, 2009.
111 We found the lighting situation to be similar to, both, Pine Meadows and Woodland Park. We found minimal amounts of lighting fixtures contributing to acceptable illuminance levels, although visibility was difficult. We feel that extreme amounts of darkness potentially played a role in the majority of reported victimizations. Vegetative landscaping in close proximity to the two points of entry, we found, not to be as overgrown as the vegetation in our study devel opments. However, we do feel that, similar to the victimized units on the east side of Pine Mea dows, the adjacency of the woods to the point of entry potentially provided the dense cover n eeded to victimize those selected units. Summary of the Discussion We understand that there are other potential va riables, such as dem ographics, economics, and education, which might have played a role in the occurrence of the residential burglaries within our selected developments. However, we felt that lighting and la ndscaping would directly affect the occurrence rate by phys ically altering the characterist ics of the area, thereby making the offender aware of higher risk factors. In summary, while we were unable to adequa tely infer a direct statistical relationship between lighting and landscaping cues influencing the reported residential burglaries between 2006 and 2008, within the selected GHA developments, our findings suggest that the inadequate lighting and minimally-maintained landscaping c ontributed indirectly to the residential burglaries by diminishing the opportunities for surveillance to occur. The exterior house lights provided inadequate amounts of li ght to distinguish potential pr edators. The minimal amount of GRU-managed fixtures, both street lights and security yard light s, such as the mercury-vapor lamps seen in Pine Meadows and Woodland Park, need to provide higher illumination measurements to protect the safety of the residents and their guests. Street light measurements, directly beneath the fixture, suggest that closer positioning to points of entry might have warded
112 off offenders during evening occurrences. We also felt that the landscaping in the immediate vicinity of the points of entry, for the majority, was overgrown and under maintained. It was evident that landscaping, such as the grass, was maintained often; however, time and energy needs to be increased by the Gainesville Housing Authority to ensure th at their landscaping does not provide cover for perpetra tors to commit criminal acts.
113 Table 4-1. Calculated Burglary Crime Rate s between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008 Year # Of Incidences Total Incidences Estimated Population* Population / 100,000 Crime Rate Rate of Change USA 2006 2,183,746 6,585,082 299,397,484 2993.98484 729.4 2007 2,179,140 301,621,157 3016.21157 722.5 0.95% 2008 2,222,196 304,059,724 3040.59724 730.8 + 1.16% Florida 2006 170,873 541,173 18,089,888 180.89888 944.6 2007 181,833 18,251,243 182.51243 996.3 + 5.47% 2008 188,467 18,328,340 173.28340 1028.3 + 3.21% Gainesville 2006 1420 4,324 110,009 1.10009 1298.8 2007 1522 108,289 1.08289 1405.5 + 8.89% 2008 1382 133,286 1.33286 1036.9 6.23% GHA** 2006 22 64 1972.5 0.019725 1115.3 2007 24 1972.5 0.019725 1216.7 + 9.09% 2008 18 1972.5 0.019725 912.5 5.00% Pine Meadows** 2006 3 9 180 0.0018 1666.7 2007 6 180 0.0018 3333.3 + 100.00% 2008 3 180 0.0018 1666.7 50.00% Woodland Park** 2006 7 19 382.5 0.003825 1830.1 2007 6 382.5 0.003825 1568.6 14.29% 2008 6 382.5 0.003825 1568.6 0.00% Caroline Manor** 2006 2 6 63 0.00063 3174.6 2007 3 63 0.00063 4761.9 + 50.00% 2008 1 63 0.00063 1587.3 66.67% Tree Trail** 2006 6 21 243 0.00243 2469.1 2007 4 243 0.00243 1646.0 33.34% 2008 11 243 0.00243 4526.7 + 175.01% Source: FBI UCR, 2006, 2007, 2008, and GPD RMS *The populations for the United States, Florida, and Ga inesville were derived from the UCR Burglary Tables, available from the FBI. The populatio ns for the GHA, Pine Meadows, Wo odland Park, Caroline Manor, and Tree Trail Apartments were calculated by multiplying the total number of units within each development by 2.25, the estimated population per household according to the 2000 US Census **Gainesville Housing Authority Developments and Tree Trail Apartment burgl ary numbers only include residential burglary due to being housing
114 Table 4-2. Reported Residential Burglaries by Year and Development Housing Development Address 2006 2007 2008 Totals Lake Terrace SE 26th Terrace & Street 3 2 3 8 Caroline Manor Se 25th Terrace 2 3 1 6 Pinewood Meadows 2626 East University Avenue 3 6 3 12 Woodland Park 1900 Se 4th Street 7 6 6 19 Forest Pines NE 25th Street & Terrace & NE 26th Terrace 3 3 2 8 Eastwood Meadows 925 SE 43rd Street No Data No Data No Data No Data Oak Park 100 NE 8th Avenue 1 1 1 3 Sunshine Park 1901 NW 2nd Street 1 0 0 1 The 400 400 NW 1st Avenue 0 0 1 1 Seminary Lane 1019 NW 5th Avenue 2 3 1 6 Totals 22 24 18 64 Source: GPD RMS
115 Table 4-3. Selected Residential Burglari es Incidences in Study Developments From To # Point of Entry Pine Meadows 12/12/06 0000 hours 12/27/06 0930 hours A Living Room Window (NE) 05/16/07 1300 hours 05/16/07 1500 hours D Window (S) 07/06/07 0615 hours 07/06/07 1600 hours E Bedroom Window 08/22/07 0730 hours 08/22/07 0740 hours E Bedroom Window 08/24/07 0930 hours 08/27/07 0930 hours B Back Door 04/21/08 1500 hours 04/21/08 2200 hours C Unknown Woodland Park 1/27/06 1030 hours 01/28/06 1000 hours E Open porch 04/21/06 2100 hours 04/02/06 0900 hours J Window (SW) 08/26/06 1230 hours 08/26/06 1800 hours H Unknown 09/02/06 1745 hours 09/02/06 1800 hours A Bedroom Window 11/16/06 1900 hours 11/16/06 2000 hours F Open porch 12/11/06 0630 hours 12/11/06 1515 hours B Back Door 04/17/07 0800 hours 04/17/07 1400 hours K Bedroom Window (SW) 05/08/07 1720 hours 05/08/07 2250 hours G Window (SW) 05/26/07 1400 hours 05/27/07 0200 hours D Window (SW) 06/20/07 2100 hours 06/21/07 0100 hours K Bedroom Window (SW) 10/11/07 1430 hours 10/12/07 0125 hours C Bedroom Window (E) 02/02/08 1700 hours 02/03/08 1600 hours I Window (E) 12/06/08 1200 hours 12/06/08 2240 hours C Bedroom Window (E) Caroline Manor 11/26/06 1400 hours 12/2/06 1200 hours A Back Door 04/13/07 0450 hours 04/13/07 0450 hours B Back Door (Occupied) 04/16/07 Unknown 04/16/07 2030 hours A Back Door Source: GPD RMS
116 Table 4-4. Landscape Survey Completed in Pine Meadows Case No.1 DOI TOI #2 POE LANDSCAPE TYPE HGHT DNSTY (L, M, H) DIST TO POE OBSTRUCT OF VIEW (L, M, H) 026631 12/12/06 12/27/06 0000 0930 A Living Room Window (NE) Bush Tree Wall 4.5 45 8 L L H 2 feet 6 feet 15 yds M M M 013357 7/6/07 0615 1600 E Bedroom Window Wood line (to E) Wood line (to N) 40 40+ M M 10 yds 15 yds M M 016775 8/22/07 0730 0740 E Bedroom Window Wood line (to E) Wood line (to N) 40 40+ M M 10 yds 15 yds M M 017154 8/24/07 8/27/07 0930 0930 B Back Door Tree Wall 20 8 L H 4 feet 15 yds. L H 007603 4/21/08 1500 2200 C Unknown (Est. AC Removal) Tree Wall 20 8 L H 10 feet 20 feet L H 009840 5/16/08 1300 1500 D Window (S) Wood line (to E) Tree 40 40+ H L 18 yds 20 yds H L Source: Site Visits (Pine M eadows, September 18 and 23, 2009) Key: DOI = Day of Incident, TOI = Time of Incidence, # = Un it Number, POE = Point of Entry, HGHT = Height, DNSTY = Density, L = Low, M = Moderate, H= High, Dist. = Distance, Yds = Yards Note: Survey conducted in order of unit numbers 1 Due to confidentiality issues, we removed a portion of the case numbers. 2 To protect the victim, we supplemented the or iginal unit number with surrogate unit numbers.
117 Table 4-5. Lighting Survey Co mpleted in Pine Meadows # POE # OF FIXT TYPE OF FIXT DIST TO POE FIXT HGT MSR AT 5 MSR AT 0 TYPE OF LIGHT TYPE OF HEAD A Living Room Window (NE) 1 Ext. House Light 11 yds 6 0.04 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light E Bedroom Window 1 1 Ext. House Light Street Light 15 yds 19 yds 6 24 0.05 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light E Bedroom Window 1 1 Ext. House Light Street Light 15 yds 19 yds 6 24 0.05 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light B Back Door 1 1 Ext. House Light Ext. House Light 16 yds 19 yds 6 6 0.04 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Incandescent Bulb Dome Light Dome Light C Unknown 1 1 Ext. House Light Street Light Taken at Rear Door 20.4 yds 6 24 0.09 0.07 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light Cobra Head D Window (S) 1 Street Light 22 yds. 24 0.00 Mercury-Vapor Source: Site Visits (Pine M eadows, September 18 and 23, 2009) Key: DOI = Day of Incident, TOI = Time of Incidence, # = Unit Number, POE = Point of Entry, FIXT = Fixtures, Dist. = Distance, HGT = Height, MSR = Measure, Ext. = Exterior Note: Survey conducted in order of unit numbers Measurements in foot candles
118 Table 4-6. Landscape Survey Completed in Woodland Park Case No.9 DOI TOI #10 POE LANDSCAPE TYPE HGHT DNSTY (L, M, H) DIST TO POE OBSTRUCT OF VIEW (L, M, H) 002021 1/27/06 1/28/06 1030 1000 E Open Porch Trees 30+ L 25 yds L 006672 4/1/06 4/2/06 2100 0900 J Window (SW) Bushes 18 M 19 yds L 017139 8/26/06 1230 1800 H Unknown Wall Bushes/Trees 8 2-30 H M UNKWN H M 017759 9/2/06 1745 1945 A Bedroom Window Bushes Tree Tree 5 12 50+ M L M 18 5 yds 30 yds M L M 023875 11/16/06 1900 2000 F Open Porch Bushes 10 L 20 yds L 025608 12/11/06 0630 1515 B Back Door Bush Wood line 6 25+ H H 8 yds 23 yds H H 007660 4/17/07 0800 1400 K Bedroom Window (SW) Bush 8+ H Adjacent H 9 Due to confidentiality issues, we removed a portion of the case numbers. 10 To protect the victim, we supplemented the or iginal unit number with surrogate unit numbers.
119 Table 4-6. Continued 009188 5/8/07 1720 2250 G Window (SW) (AC Removed) N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M 010653 5/26/07 5/27/07 1400 0200 D Window (SW) (AC Removed) Bushes Wood line Wall 8 10 8 H H H 12 yds 6 yds 6 yds M H H 012281 6/20/07 6/21/07 2100 0100 K Bedroom Window (SW) Bush 8+ H Adjacent H 021347 10/11/07 10/12/07 1340 0125 C Bedroom Window (E) N/A N/A N/A N/A L 002312 2/2/08 2/3/08 1700 1600 I Window (E) N/A N/A N/A N/A L 024197 12/6/08 1200 2240 C Bedroom Window (E) N/A N/A N/A N/A L Source: Site Visits (Pine M eadows, September 18 and 23, 2009) Key: DOI = Day of Incident, TOI = Time of Incidence, # = Un it Number, POE = Point of Entry, HGHT = Height, DNSTY = Density, Dist. = Distance, N/M = Not Measured, N/A = No t Applicable (No Elements within Proximity) Note: Survey conducted in order of unit numbers
120 Table 4-7. Lighting Survey Completed in Woodland Park # POE # OF FIXT TYPE OF FIXT DIST TO POE FIXT HGT MSR AT 5 MSR AT 0 TYPE OF LIGHT TYPE OF HEAD E Open Porch 2 Street Light 25 yds 24 N/M N/M Cobra Head J Window (SW) 1 1 Street Light Ext. House Light 27.3 yds 8 yds 24 6 0.31 0.23 Incandescent Bulb Cobra Head Dome Light H Unknown 2 2 Street Light Ext. House Light UNKWN 24 24 6 0.19 0.13 Incandescent Bulb Cobra Head Dome Light A Bedroom Window 2 Street Light 29 yds 20 yds 30 23 0.38 0.31 Cobra Head F Open Porch N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M N/M B Back Door 1 1 Street Light Ext. House Light (not work) 17.3 yds 10 24 6 0.05 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Cobra Head Dome Light K Bedroom Window (SW) 1 Ext. House Light 5 yds 6 0.04 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light
121 Table 4-7. Continued G Window (SW) (AC Removed) 1 1 Street Light Ext. House Light 27.4 yds 8 yds 24 6 0.29 0.23 Incandescent Bulb Cobra Head Dome Light D Window (SW) (AC Removed) 1 1 Street Light Ext. House Light 28 yds 3 yds 24 6 0.31 0.24 Incandescent Bulb Cobra Head Dome Light K Bedroom Window (SW) 1 Ext. House Light 5 yds 6 0.04 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light C Bedroom Window (E) 1 Ext. House Light 4 yds 6 0.05 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light I Window (E) 1 Ext. House Light 6.2 yds 6 0.21 0.17 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light C Bedroom Window (E) 1 Ext. House Light 4 yds 6 0.05 0.01 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light Source: Site Visits (Pine M eadows, September 18 and 23, 2009) Key: DOI = Day of Incident, TOI = Time of Incidence, # = Unit Number, POE = Point of Entry, FIXT = Fixtures, Dist. = Distance, HGT = Height, MSR = Measure, Ext. = Exterior Note: Survey conducted in order of unit numbers Measurements in foot candles
122 Table 4-8. Landscape Survey Completed in Caroline Manor Case No.1 DOI TOI #2 POE LANDSCAPE TYPE HGHT DNSTY (L, M, H) DIST TO POE OBSTRUCT OF VIEW (L, M, H) 024963 11/26/06 12/02/06 1400 1200 A Rear Door Wood Line Tree Tree Bushes 45+ 40 40 2.5 H M M M 20 yds 11.7 yds 13.6 yds 1 yds H M M L 007331 04/13/07 0450 B Rear Door (Occupied) Wood Line Tree Bushes 30+ 40+ 3 M M L 20 yds 7 yds 1.5 yds E M L 007604 04/16/07 Unkn 2030 A Rear Door Wood Line Tree Tree Bushes 45+ 40 40 2.5 H M M M 20 yds 11.7 yds 13.6 yds 1 yds H M M L Source: Site Visits (Caro line Manor, September 23, 2009) Key: DOI = Day of Incident, TOI = Time of Incidence, # = Un it Number, POE = Point of Entry, HGT = Height, DNSTY = Density, L = Low, M = Moderate, H= High, Dist. = Distance, Unkn= Unknown, Yds = Yards Note: Survey conducted in order of unit numbers 1 Due to confidentiality issues, we removed a portion of the case numbers. 2 To protect the victim, we supplemented the or iginal unit number with surrogate unit numbers.
123 Table 4-9. Lighting Survey Completed in Caroline Manor # POE # OF FIXT TYPE OF FIXT DIST TO POE FIXT HGT MSR AT 5* MSR AT 0* TYPE OF LIGHT TYPE OF HEAD A Rear Door 1 Ext. House Light 1.5 yards 6 0.13 0.08 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light A Rear Door 1 Ext. House Light 1.5 yards 6 0.13 0.08 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light B Rear Door 1 Ext. House Light 1.5 yards 6 0.15 0.11 Incandescent Bulb Dome Light Source: Site Visits (Pine M eadows, September 18 and 23, 2009) Key: DOI = Day of Incident, TOI = Time of Incidence, # = Unit Number, POE = Point of Entry, FIXT = Fixtures, Dist. = Distance, HGT = Height, MSR = Measure, Ext. = Exterior Note: Survey conducted in order of unit numbers Measurements in foot candles
124 Table 4-10. Additional Light Measurem ents Taken in Each Development Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Average Pine Meadows East At 5 feet 2.70 2.75 2.73 2.73 At Ground 2.05 2.08 2.06 2.06 West At 5 feet 2.72 2.71 2.70 2.71 At Ground 2.06 2.05 2.03 2.05 Woodland Park Zone 1 At 5 Feet 2.74 2.72 2.73 At Ground 2.08 2.04 2.06 Zone 2 At 5 Feet 2.69 2.71 2.70 At Ground 2.02 2.06 2.04 Zone 3 At 5 Feet 2.71 2.70 2.71 At Ground 2.08 2.04 2.06 Caroline Manor At 5 Feet 2.68 2.71 2.69 2.69 At Ground 2.01 2.02 2.01 2.01 Source: Measurements taken by Officer Ernest Graham
125 Table 4-11. Summary of St udy Development Lighting and Landscaping Findings Development # of Studied Incidences Light Msrmts* >0.05 ; 2.5< Light Msrmts* 0.05< ; > 2.5 Aver. Low Landscaping Moderate Landscaping High Landscaping Day Surveil (L,M,H) Evening Surveil (L,M,H) Pine Meadows 6 2 3 1 5 0 M M Woodland Park 13 4 9 2 3 4 M L Caroline Manor 3 0 3 0 3 0 M L Source: Summary of findings Key: Msrmts = Measurements, Aver. = Average, Surveil = Surv eillability Opportunities, L = Low, M = Moderate, H = High Measurements in foot candles
126 Figure 4-1 Alachua County, Florida Source: Florida Geographic Database Library (FGDL)
127 Figure 4-2. Gainesville, Florida Source: FGDL
128 Figure 4-3. Properties managed by the Gainesville Housing Authority Sources: FGDL, and GPD.
129 Figure 4-4. Selected Gainesville Housing Authority Study Developments Sources: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and GPD.
130 Figure 4-5. Location of the Pine Meadows Development Sources: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and GPD.
131 Figure 4-6. Pine Meadows Victimized Units Source: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and Gainesville Police Department
132 Figure 4-7. Points of Entry in Pine Meadows Victimized Units Source: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and Gainesville Police Department
133 Figure 4-8. Non-Structural Wall at the Main Entry of the Residences Source: Photo by author
134 Figure 4-9. Example of Landscaping Observed in Pine Meadows Source: Photo by author
135 Figure 4-10. Fencing In Proximity to Unit E Source: Photo by author
136 Figure 4-11. Location of Light Fixtures within the Pine Meadows Development Sources: Alachua County Property Appr aiser, GPD, and Public Works.
137 Figure 4-12. Locations where Additional Light Measurements were taken at Pine Meadows Sources: Alachua County Property Appr aiser, GPD, and Public Works.
138 Figure 4-13. Location of the Woodland Park Development Sources: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and GPD.
139 Figure 4-14. Woodland Park Victimized Units Source: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and Gainesville Police Department
140 Figure 4-15. Points of Entry in Woodland Park Victimized Units Source: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and Gainesville Police Department
141 Figure 4-16. Landscaping between Unit A and W illiston Road [Image provided by Google Maps, 2009.]
142 Figure 4-17. Opening in Fence Separa ting Victimized Unit B and Williston Road Source: Photo by author
143 Figure 4-18. Landscaping in the Vicinity of Unit D Source: Photo by author Figure 4-19. Landscaping in the Vicinity of Unit K Source: Photo by author
144 Figure 4-20. Location of Light Fixtures within the Woodla nd Park Development Sources: Alachua County Property Appr aiser, GPD, and Public Works.
145 Figure 4-21. Cobra Head Light Fixture Source: Photo by author Figure 4-22. Mercury-Vapor Fixture Source: Photo by author Cobra Head Light Fixture Mercury-Vapor Lamp
146 Figure 4-23. Lighting Quality Directly Beneath a Street Light Fixture in Evening Hours Source: Photo by author
147 Figure 4-24. Locations where Additional Light Measurements were taken at Woodland Park Sources: Alachua County Property Appr aiser, GPD, and Public Works.
148 Figure 4-25. Location of the Caroline Manor development Source: Alachua County Pr operty Appraiser, GPD.
149 Figure 4-26. Points of Entry in Caroline Manor Victimized Units Source: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and Gainesville Police Department
150 Figure 4-27. Half-Wall located at the North and South Ends of Each Unit in the Caroline Manor Development [Image provided by Google Maps, 2009.] Note: Due to our only visit to Caroline Manor, we were unable to document the site with our camera. Therefore, we used a map from Google Maps Street View. Half-Wall Screen
151 Figure 4-28. Location of Light Fixtures within the Caroline Manor Development Sources: Alachua County Property Appr aiser, GPD, and Public Works.
152 Figure 4-29. Locations where Additional Light Measurements we re taken at Caroline Manor Sources: Alachua County Property Appr aiser, GPD, and Public Works.
153 Figure 4-30. Residential Burg laries that Occurred within the Two-Block Bu ffer around Caroline Manor and Pine Meadows Sources: Alachua County Prope rty Appraiser, and GPD.
154 Figure 4-31. Land Uses within the Two-Block Buffer around Caroline Manor and Pine Meadows Sources: Alachua County Prope rty Appraiser, and GPD.
155 Figure 4-32. Residential Burglari es that Occurred within the Two-Block Buffer around Woodland Park Sources: Alachua County Prope rty Appraiser, and GPD.
156 Figure 4-33. Land Uses within the Two-Block Buffer around Woodland Park Sources: Alachua County Prope rty Appraiser, and GPD.
157 Figure 4-34. Example of Landscap ing for Beautification Purposes Source: Photo by author
158 Figure 4-35. Tree Trail Apartments & Burglaries Source: Alachua County Property Appraiser, FGDL, and GPD.
159 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Our Conclusion section provides inform ation a bout the literature related to the physical environment and crime and our research process, th e limitations of our research, suggested future research, and recommendations di rectly related to li ghting and landscaping, as they relate to safety. We understand there are reasons for our inability to conclusively infer a direct relationship between the lighting a nd landscaping as they related to the residential burglaries in Pine Meadows, Woodland Park, and Caroline Ma nor, the Gainesville Housing Authority (GHA) developments we observed. Crime and the Physical Environment Studies suggest that offenders rely on various types of environm enta l cues when selecting a target for victimization. Demographics, ec onomics, education, and physical environmental elements are all suggested to contribute to the offenders selection process. Attempting to prevent the possibility for vic timization to occur should be a key responsibility. This thesis examined whether lighting and landscaping, which are physical environmen tal cues, contributed to the occurrence of residential burglary vic timization within select GHA developments. Our literature review examined research suggesting that the physical environment contributes to the occurrence of crime. Studies su ggest that criminal activity can be prevented, or at least reduced, by designing an environment with specific crit eria, primarily focused on the safety of the site and its inhabitants. While previous research has studied the relationship between lighting and landscaping as they pertain to residential burglaries, little conclusive evidence has been produced. We also found that many law enforcemen t departments are employing Geographic Information Systems (GIS), a data-mapping program, to track criminal acts, establish criminal
160 patterns, and forecast future occurrences. We employed GIS to examine the locations of the reported residential burglaries wi thin our developments, and complete analysis related to the location of points of entry and the distance of the light fixtures in proximity, managed by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU). Limitations of our Research We found lim itations to our resear ch that resulted in the in ability to fully conclude a relationship between lighting a nd landscaping cues with residential burglaries. The first limitation we found with our research was sele cting public housing de velopments within Gainesville, Florida. A study that we examined during our literature re view process indicated that crime within public housing is often ten time s higher than the national average. While we found the residential burglary rates per 100,000 persons to generally be higher in the GHA developments, specifically within our selected developments, we felt that the low number of incidences made it difficult to c onclude our hypothesis as valid. Therefore, we felt that we should have chosen to examine the reported incide nces of at least half of the GHA developments. Another limitation to our resear ch was relying on the narratives within the case reports provided by Gainesville Police Department. We ex amined the narratives within each reported incidence within our study developments and de duced specific incidences to examine. We removed several of the reported incidences from our analysis due to their nature of domesticity, which left us with a minute study population. We al so relied on the officer narratives to locate the exact point of entry, some of which were una ble to do so, due to lack of visible signs of forced entry. Although we included these report s within our study analysis, we were unable to conduct analysis at the exact point of entry. While we feel that the additional information would not have made a significant adjustment to our fi ndings, they would have contributed to a more exact set of measurements, in which could be statistically analyzed.
161 Our final limitation to our research was the inability to obtain specific documentation about the lighting fixtures and st ate of the landscaping at time of incidence. Our intentions were to analyze these documents, specifically the requested work orders for lighting to determine if there were any light fixtures that were non-f unctioning at the time of incidence and whether fixtures have been installed or replaced since the time of incidence. We also hoped to obtain documentation about the landscaping, to determine if the current vegetation existed at the time of incidence and whether vegetation, other than the grass, was being maintained. If we had been able to obtain the mentioned documents, we feel that we would have been able to better understand the approximate state of the lighting and vegetation in proxim ity to the points of entry, estimated through the officer narratives and visible signs of forced entry. Recommendation for Future Research Our present research focused on lighting and la n dscaping cues related to the occurrence of residential burglaries within the Gainesville Housing Developments. Our intention was to examine how lighting and landscapi ng relate to residential burglary in general, however we chose to look at the incidences since we assumed, prior to receiving our re sidential burglary data from GPD, that the developments would have more incidences of victimization. However, as we previously mentioned in the limitation to our res earch, we feel that we had too small of a study population. Therefore, we recomme nd that future research include larger study populations within the Gainesville Housing Authority develo pment. We would like to see future research include an analysis of at l east half of the GHA developments so that a more definitive conclusion could be inferred regarding the eff ects of lighting and landscaping on the occurrence of residential burglaries. Because our purpose was to analyze the relati onship of lighting and landscaping, as related to residential burglaries, we would recommend that future research also include an observation
162 and analysis of other areas within the Gaines ville or Alachua County area that have higher victimization rates. In both recommendations for future research, the re searcher would use the same survey conducted at the selected site s to retain consistency in the analysis. Recommendations Gathered from our Research Through our research and analysis, we have observed prom ising and disturbing elements within proximity to the victimized units we chose to study. Derived from our observations, we have developed recommendations for the City as well as the Gainesville Housing Authority. While we understand that some suggestions might be infeasible at this tim e, we hope that they will be beneficial to them in their future as they examine, and hopefully implement, our recommendations. Ordinances directly defining acceptable lighting and landscaping elements, as they relate to the safety of inhabitants and reduction of criminal activity, need to be constructed and implemented within the Citys governing Code of Ordinances. While we did observe minimal lighting measurements, the majority of the lighti ng fell within the acceptable standard suggested by the citys ordinances. We f ound minimal ordinances pertaining to lighting, and therefore we recommend evaluating examples of other commun ities that have implemented such policies. Communities like Tucson and Tempe, Arizona ha ve found benefits to the implementation of lighting and landscaping ordinances. We feel that implemented ordi nances related specifically to housing developments would be beneficial to the city, such as promoting routine maintenance of properties, which would aid in surveillance and policing con ducted by the Gainesville Police Department, and aid in tax revenue, as they could be imposed by code enforcements. We further recommend that the Gainesville Housing Authority examine the landscaping situation within their developments. We feel that the use of non-structural solid brick walls for privatizing entryways into residences, such as in place at Pine Meadows and Woodland Park, are
163 a hindrance on the ability for observation to occur fr om the streets. We feel that deconstructing the 8 foot walls to 4 foot knee walls and removing portions of the brick to create a screen rather than a wall would benefit th e communities by allowing easier opportunities for observation to occur. We recommend using the knee walls at Ca roline Manor as examples of ways to create privatized entries without fully obscuring the view to the rear sides of the units or to the communal backyards that we found in our study developments. Furthermore, we recommend that the Gainesvi lle Housing Authority evaluate the inventory of vegetation on the properties, specifically in proximity to the each unit. Routine yard maintenance, such as trimming bushes around window s so that they are no higher than the bottom sill and removing limbs on trees that are less than 7 feet high, would be not only be beneficial by attempting to remove opportunitie s for predatory cover, but they would also beautify each development. Yard beautification implies that residents care about their community and care about the other residents. Re search has suggested th at predators are less likely to target a victim when they ge t the feeling of community cohesiveness. Other landscaping recommendations include the use of vegetative landscaping near windows that might deter predators, such as the use of prickly bushes or defensive shrubbery. Plants such as the Hawthorne and the Holly are hedges typically installed for security purposes. Other attractive plants such as the Berberis, Ma honia, and Pyrocanthus offer various qualities of security. If vegetative landscaping is not ideal, we also recommend placing beds of pebbles, or other such elements, underneath window sills. The purpose of the pebbles is to make noise when they are being walked on. Predator s potentially will view the adde d noise as enough of a risk to deter their criminal activities.
164 Our final recommendation to the Gainesville Ho using Authority is in regards to lighting. Where lighting was installed and measurements we re taken directly beneath fixtures, we found that we were able to observe various elements within our proximity. We also found that light measurements were within requirements, as impos ed by the Code of Ordinances. However, when we traveled farther into the developments, to the rear sides of the various units, we found low amounts of lighting that made it difficult for the researcher and the escorting law enforcement officer to see anything. (See Figure 4-23 in the Findi ngs section). Most of the interior backyards had street lighting in place; howev er they were so far away from any of the proximal units that lighting really did not impact the areas around the rear side of th e units. We recommend that the Gainesville Housing Authority c onduct a lighting survey, to dete rmine which light fixtures are unnecessary due to location. After our observation of the sites, we observed lighting fixtures that were not beneficial to any proximal element w ithin the site, and ther efore should be removed. We believe that a lighting survey would allow the GHA to determine which lighting fixtures should be removed, where fixtures should be inst alled, or possibly just relocated to increase levels of illumination throughout the sites, th ereby increasing opportunities for surveillance. Finally, we feel that the majority of the exteri or house lights, at the rear doors of the units did not provide significant levels of illumination. We feel that it would be beneficial for the housing authority to research th e Illumination Engineering Societ y of North Americas suggest lighting standards for security, and research di fferent types of vandalresistant exterior house lighting that would provide higher, and more acceptable, lighting measurements as recommended by the IESNA. Conclusions We understand that the study of lighting and la ndscaping cues, and th eir relationship to residential burglaries, particular ly in public housing developm ents, is in its beginning stages.
165 Although we were unable to infer a direct rela tionship between light ing and landscaping and residential burglaries, we find it highly unlikely that the incidences we studied were randomly selected by various perpetrators. Pe rpetrators rely on signals to eval uate the associated risks with the potential gain of committing an offense. Ultimately, based on various conducted studies of research, including the study conducted by Kuo and Sullivan (2001), and our understanding of the need for crime-reducing techniques employe d in community governing ordinances, we feel that installing context-sensitive landscaping materials and performing routine landscaping maintenance is crucial to minimizing resident ial burglaries. We feel that lighting and landscaping, when properly maintained, can prom ote opportunities for surveillability, thereby increasing the risks for the perceived gains, re sulting in a decreased amount of any sort of criminal activity, particular ly residential burglaries. Through our research our findings imply that landscaping and lighting do not only play a role in residential burglaries occurring within public housing developments. We speculate that a lack of surveillability could be an important el ement of residential burglaries within other lowincome housing developments, as well as middle and upper class neighborhoods, although we understand the contexts are different. Through our informal interviews with people at the Gainesville Police Department, we believed that residential burgl ary rates would be high in th e GHA public housing developments. While we found the residential burgl ary rates to be higher in our se lected developments, we were under the assumption that the overall raw numbers would have been significantly higher than what they were. Although we were unable to determine the exact state of the lighting and landscaping at the time of incidence, we were able to conduct a surv ey of the current nature of both cues. We found
166 good and bad examples of both cues within the de velopments, and it appears, for the most part that the housing authority attempts to take prid e in their properties by keeping the grass mowed and the debris removed from the main roadways. Li ghting at the street is significant to produce acceptable measurements of lighting intensity. Currently, there are a lack of substantial studi es examining the selected environmental cues and their relation to residential burglaries. Current studies, simila r to our findings, suggest that criminal activity, in general, are less likely to occur with an incr ease in opportunities for surveillance; however this relies too much on th e legitimate user of the spaces willingness to become involved in the situation. Our study ad dressed the relationship between residential burglaries and lighting and lands caping cue within select Gainesville Housing Authority developments and provides recommendations to the management, to the city, as well as recommendations for future research related to the topic.
167APPENDIX A Table A-1. City of Gainesville Code of Ordinances Pertaining to Lighting b. Exterior Lighting Lighting which is provided for the security of areas such as, but not limited to, building entrances, stairways, ramps and main walkwa ys or for a permitted outdoor use of land (such as ball parks) shall not under any circumstances exceed a maximum average maintained illumination of 25 foot candles at ground level, and uni formity ratio of 6:1. Exterior wall -mounted lighting shall be full cutoff fixtures (as defined by IESNA). The maximum ligh ting intensity permitted for the security of the areas described above, for permitted outdoor land uses, or pole heights, other than those located in off-street parking facilities, may be increased by the appropri ate reviewing board through site plan review, or the board of adjustment by obtaining a special exception if si te plan review is not re quired, provided that the applicant establishes that such an increase meets the following standards: a. the increase in intensity is reasonably required for security purposes for the us e or for conducting the permitted outdoor use; b. the increase in intensity will not resu lt in a nuisance to adjo ining properties and does not interfere with the lawful use and enjoyment of adjoining properties; and c. necessary screening will be erected or exists and maintained to reduce the impact of the incr ease in intensity on adjoining properties. Sec. 30-160.d 33 Height. The maximum height of light fixtures, except as otherwise regul ated by this section, shall not exceed 30 feet. Lighting (excerpt) All off-street parking facilities shall be continuous ly lighted after dark throughout the hours that they are in use by the public. Such lighting sh all be designed to maintain an average horizontal illuminance not to exceed 2.5 foot candles, and a mini mum horizontal illuminance of 0.5 foot candles. The uniformity ratio (ratio of average to minimum illuminance) shall be no greater than 5:1, and the maximum to minimum uniformity ratio shall be no greater than 15:1. (excerpt) All other uses s for Open and Covered Parki ng Facilities, Latest Edition (hereinafter IESNA) for pedestrian safety. Sec. 30-330.a 4 (excerpt) A photometric plan shall be provided in compliance with section 30-160(d). Parking lot lighting locations shall not be in conflict with re quired trees or any existing trees required to remain on the property. The maximum height of fi xtures shall not exceed 30 feet, except as regulated by an adopted special area pl an or other applicable regulations.
168Table A-1. Continued a. Light trespass and glare. Any development adjacent to a resident ial use shall not create light trespass of more than 0.5 foot candles measured perpendicularly from the light source at a distance of 25 feet from the property line. Any light trespa ss onto adjacent non-residential pr operties shall not exceed 1.0 foot candles measured perpendicularly fro m the light source at a distance of 25 feet from the property line. Roadway lighting is exempt from li ght trespass requirements. Directiona l luminaries such as floodlights, spotlights, sign lights and area lights shall be so instal led and aimed that they illuminate only the task or roadways. Building faade lighting, sports lighting and other applications using floodlights shall have glare shielding (external or internal shields) to prevent light trespa ss and light pollution. All lighting shall be designed, hooded or shielded to direct light so that no illumination source or glare creates a nuisance to any adjoining property or unreasonably interferes with th e lawful use and enjoyment of any adjoining property. b. Exterior lighting. Lighting which is provided for the securi ty of areas such as, but not limited to, building entrances, stairways, ramps and main walkwa ys or for a permitted outdoor use of land (such as ball parks) shall not under any circumstances exceed a maximum average maintained illumination of 25 foot candles at ground level, and uni formity ratio of 6:1. Exterior wall -mounted lighting shall be full cutoff fixtures (as defined by IESNA). The maximum ligh ting intensity permitted for the security of the areas described above, for permitted outdoor land uses, or pole heights, other than those located in off-street parking facilities, may be increased by the appropri ate reviewing board through site plan review, or the board of adjustment by obtaining a special exception if si te plan review is not re quired, provided that the applicant establishes that such an increase meets the following standards: a. the increase in intensity is reasonably required for security purposes for the us e or for conducting the permitted outdoor use; b. the increase in intensity will not resu lt in a nuisance to adjo ining properties and does not interfere with the lawful use and enjoyment of adjoining properties; and c. necessary screening will be erected or exists and maintained to reduce the impact of the incr ease in intensity on adjoining properties. Sec. 30-345.b.8 d. Height The maximum height of light fi xtures, except as otherwise regul ated by this section, shall not exceed 30 feet.
169Table A-1. Continued Sec. 30-345.1 Nonconforming luminaires All lamps, light fixtures and lighti ng systems (hereinafter "luminaires") lawfully in place prior to February 11, 2002, sha ll be deemed legally nonconforming. However, if cumulatively at any time, 50 percent or more of the ex isting outdoor light fixtures are replaced, or number of outdoor light fixtures is increase d by 50 percent or more, then all outd oor light fixtures shall conform to the provisions of section 30-160, section 30-330, and section 30-345. A development plan amendment shall be certified by a registered engineer or arch itect, or lighting professional holding a current L.C. (lighting certificate) from the National Council on Qualifications fo r the Lighting Profession (NCQLP). Additionally, nonconforming luminaires that direct light toward streets or parking areas that cause glare so as to cause a public nuisance should be either shielded or re-directed within 30 days of notification. Source: City of Gainesville, 2009
170APPENDIX B Table B-1. U.S. Department of Hous ing and Urban Development Public H ousing Modernization Standards Handbook Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting shall be provided fo r save and convenient site access, circulation, and building entry. Chapter 7-5. a. Site Lighting Site lighting shall not cas e uncomfortable light direc tly into dwelling units. Tall trees or shrubbery that cast shadows, pr eventing lighting of entrance doors or other vulnerable areas, shall be trimmed. Lighting fixtur es shall provide light for intended use, be supported and anchored, be vandal-resistant and be safely and soundly wired. Globes and fixtures shall not be broken a nd wires or internal mechanisms shall not be exposed. Controls shall be operable and protected from misuse. Outdoor lighting shall be retrofitted with energy conservation devises that are cost-effective, such as: Sodium vapor conversion; Photo-cell or time clock control; or Other. a. Site Lighting In areas where lighting systems have been vandalized and abused, the following should be considered: Provision of high intensity lighting such as mercury vapor, metal halide and high or low pressure sodium in outdoor areas requiring high visibility; Use of keyed switches to prevent unauthorized manipulation; and Use of building mounted outdoor lighting. Chapter 7-5.B c. Lighting Levels Lighting levels for areas requiring security and surveillance generally should be a maximum of 5 to 10 foot candles. Source: US Department of Hous ing and Urban Development, 1985
171 LIST OF REFERENCES Atkins, S., Husain, S., & Storey, A. (1991). The in fluence of street lighting on crime and fear of crime. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://www.homeoffi ce.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcpu28.pdf Bennett, T. and Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender Brookfield, VT: Gower. Bovard, J. (1994). Lost rights: The destruc tion of American liberty New York: St. Martins Press. Brantingham, P.L., & Brantingham, P. J. ( 1975). Residential burglary and urban form. Urban Studies 12(3), 273 284. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1981). Mobility, notoriety, and crime: A study in the crime patterns of urban nodal points. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11 (1), 89 99. Brantingham, P.J., & Faust, F.L. (1976). A conceptual model of crime prevention. Crime Delinquency, 22(3) 284 295. Brower, S., Dockett, K., & Tylor, R. (1983). Resi dents perceptions of territorial features and perceived local threat. Environment and Behavior, 15, 419 437. Budd, T. (1999). Burglary of domestic dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office. Burglary (2008). West's Encyclopedia of Ameri can Law Online, (2nd ed.). Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://legal-dictionary.the freedictionary.com /Burglary Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). National crime victimization survey. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006). B urg lary Rates. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ bjs/glance/burg.htm City of Gainesville (2009). Code of ordinances. Gainesville, Flor ida: Municipal Code Corporation. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://www.municode.com/Resource s/gateway.asp? pid=10819&sid=9 City of Orlando (1999). General ordinances of the city and special act s of the legislature pertaining to the city of Or lando. Tallahassee, FL: Municipa l Code Corporation. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://www.municode.com/Resource s/gateway.asp? pid=13349&sid=9 City of Tempe (n.d.). Home security. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://www.tempe.gov/cpu/homesec.htm#Landscaping
172 Clarke, R.V. (2008). Improved street lighting to reduce cr ime in residential areas. ProblemOriented Guides for Police (8th ed.). Retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/ Publications/e1208-StreetLighting.pdf Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (Eds.). (1993). Routine activity and rational choice (Vol. 5). New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crim e rate trends : A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588 605. Cromwell, P.F., and Birzer, M. (2007). Effects of police response to emotional reactions of victims of burglary. Paper presented at the annual m eeting of the AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY, Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, Georgia Online
173 Farrington, D.P., & Welsh, B.C. (2002b). Effects of improved street lighting on crime: A systematic review. Home Office Research Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors251.pdf Federal Bureau of Investigation (2007a ). Burglary. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offens es/property_crim e/burglary.html Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2007b). Property Crime. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/property_crim e/index.html Federal Bureau of Investiga tion (2007c). Violent crime. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crim e/index.html. Federal Bureau of Inves tigation (2007d). Table 23. Offense Analysis: Number and Percent Change 2006 2007 [Data file]. Retrieved June 22, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_23.html Federal Bureau of Investigati on (2007e). Offens es known to law enforcement. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/index.html Federal Bureau of Investigati on (2008a). Table 1. Crim e in th e United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 2008 [Data file]. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008b). Table 5. Crim e in the United States by state, 2008 [Data file]. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.). A wo rd about UCR data. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/word.htm Felson, M. (2002). Crime in eve ryday life Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Felson, M. & Clarke, R.V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief. Police Research Series Paper 98. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs98.pdf Fisher, B. and Nasar, J. (1992). Fear of crim e in relation to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24(1), 35 65. Gainesville Police Department (2007). 2007 an nual report. Retrieved June 28, 2009, from http://gainesvillepd.org/Downloads/2007AnnualReport.pdf Gainesville Police Departm ent (2008). Unifor m crime reports. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://gainesvillepd.org/index.php/public -inform ation/uniform-crime-reports Gainesville Police Department. Residential burglaries: January 1, 2005 December 31, 2008 [Data file]. Retrieved September 7, 2009, from Records Management System.
174 Gamman, L. & Pascoe, T. (2004). Design out crime? Using practic e-based models of the design process. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 6(4), 9 18. Retrieved September 2, 2009, from http://www.designagainstcrime. com/web/design _out_crim e.pdf Gardner, R. (1995). Crime prevention through environmental design. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from http://www.crimewise.com/library/cpted.html Groff, R. & La Vigne, N. (2002). Forecasti ng the future of predictive crime m apping. Problemoriented policing, 13(3) 29 57 Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://www.popcenter.org/library/Crim ePrevention/Volume_13/03-Groff.pdf Hough, M. (1984) Residential burglary: A profile for the British Cr ime Survey. In R. Clark & T. Hope (Eds), Coping with burglary: Research Perspectives on Policy (pp. 49-59). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. Jeffery, C. R., & Zahm, D. L. (1993). Crime pr evention through environment design, opportunity theory, and rational choice models. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (Vol. 5). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Kuo, F., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. (1998). Tran sforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28 59. Kuo, F., Sullivan, W., Coley, R., & Brunson, L. ( 1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 823 851. Kuo, F., & Sullivan, W. (2001). Environment and cr ime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343 367. Latimer, S. (2008). Lecture 1 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved April 12, 2009, from https://elearning.courses .ufl.edu/webct/urw/lc955889.tp0/cobaltMainFram e.dowebct Lilly, J., Cullen, F., and Ball, R. (2007). Criminological theory: Context and consequences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lynch, J. and Cantor, D. (1992). Ecological and behavioral influe nces on property victimization at home: Implications for opportunity theory. Crime Delinquency 29(3), 335 362. Mawby, R.I. (2001). Burglary Portland: Willan Publishing. Michael, S., Hull, R., and Zahm, D. (1999). Envi ronmental factors influe ncing auto burglary: A case study. Environment and Behavior, 33, 368 388.
175 Miethe, T.D., Stafford, M.C., & Long, J.S. ( 1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. American Sociological Review, 52(2), 184 194. Nasar, J. (1982). A model relating visual attribut es in the residential environment to fear of crime. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 247 255. Nasar, J. and Fisher, B. (1993). Hot spots of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13(3) 187 206. National Institute of Crime Prevention (n.d.). CPTED conferences. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://www.nicp.net/cpted_0207.htm Nee, C. and Taylor, M. (1988). Residential burglary in the republic of Ireland: A situational perspective. Howard Journal 27, 105 116. Newm an, O. (1972). Defensible space New York: Macmillan. Newman, O. (1997). Defensible space. Shelterforce Online Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/93/defense.htm l Noelker, L. and Harel, Z. (1992). Residential choice and the well-being of aged and disabled public housing residents, Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 4(2) 17 29. OBlock, R., Donnermeyer, J., and Doeren, S. (1991). Security and crime prevention (2nd ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Painter, K., and Tilley, N. (1999). Surveillance of public space: CCT V, street lighting, and crime prevention. New York: Criminal Justice Press. Pease, K. (1999). A review of street li ghting evaluations: Crime reduction effects. ProblemOriented Policing, 10(3) 47 76. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://www.popcenter.org/library/crime prevention/volum e_10/03-PeaseLighting.pdf Public housing. (2004). Concise Oxford English Dictionary (11th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Ratcliff, J.H. and McCullagh, M.J. (2001). Ch asing ghosts? Police per ceptions of high crime areas. British Journal of Criminology, 41(2) 330 341. Schneider, R. and Kitchen, T. (2002). Planning for crime prevention: A transatlantic perspective London: Routledge. Schneider, R. and Kitchen, T. (2007). Crime prevention and the built environment London: Routledge. Schroeder, H. and Anderson, L. (1984). Percepti on of personal safety in urban recreation sites. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 178 194.
176 Schwartz, W. (n.d.). Hartford, Connecticut, GIS crime analysis evolves: Police department mapping success. ArcNEWS Online. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/su mmer07articles/police-departm ent.html Shaffer, G. and Anderson, L. (1985). Perceptions of the security and attractiveness of urban parking lots. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5, 311 323. Stollard, P. (1991). Crime prevention through housing design London: Taylor & Francis Group. Talbot, J. and Kaplan, R. (1984). Needs and Fear s: The Response to Trees and Nature in the Inner City. Journal of Arboriculture, 10(8), 222 228. Tilley, N., Smith, J., Finer, S., Erol, R., Charle s, C., & Dobby, J. (2004). Problem-solving street crime: Practical lessons from the street crime initiative. Home Office Research. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/pssc.pdf UN-HABITAT (2007). Enhancing urban safety and security: Global report on human settlements London: Earthscan. U.S. Census Bureau (2007). 2007 population estim ates. Retrieved June 27, 2009, from http://factfinder.census.gov/ U.S. Departm ent of Housing and Urban Deve lopment (1985). Public housing modernization standards handbook: Electricity and lighting. Retrieved October 22, 2009 from http://nhl.gov/offices/adm/hudc lips/handbooks/pihh/74852/74852c7PIHH.pdf U.S. Departm ent of Justice (2009). Crime in th e United States: Preliminary annual crime report. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/table_1.html U.S. Departm ent of Justice (2004). Unif orm crime reporting handbook. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/handbook/ucrhandbook04.pdf Yang, X. (2006). Exploring the influence of envir onm ental features on resi dential burglary using spatial-temporal pattern anal ysis (Doctoral dissertation, Un iversity of Florida, 2006). Retrieved June 1, 2009, from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0013390/yang_x.pdf Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. W irtz, P. and Harrell, A. (1987) Victim and crim e characteristics, coping responses, and shortand long-term recovery from victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(6), 866 871. Wortley, R., and Mazerolle, L. (2008). Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Portland, OR: Willian Publishing.
177 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Misty M.J. Martin was born in 1982, in Gainesville, Florida, where she grew up. She attended public schools within the Alachua County school system and graduated from Buchholz High School in 2001, where she was actively involv ed in Aviance (dance team), concert band, including wind ensemble, and symphonic band, and numerous honor societies. Upon completion of high school, she attended Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) and graduated with her A.A. in 2003. Further pursuing her education, she attende d the University of Florida. In 2007, she graduated from the University of Florida (U F) with a Bachelor of Design, majoring in architecture. While at SFCC and dur ing her first two years at UF, she was involved in the Florida Visual Ensemble (color guard) and performe d halftime with Gator Band on Florida Field. During her summer hiatus from school, Mi sty married her high-school sweetheart, Thaddeus Martin. Mrs. Martin immediately commenced graduate studies in Fall 2007 at the University of Florida towards a Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning. Throughout graduate studies, she participat ed in numerous class research projects, including CPTED studies in Tree Trail Apartments and the Tacachale Center and assisted in revising the Community Redevelopment Area Plan for the City of Hawthorn e, Florida. She also completed an internship with the Gainesville Police Departments Crime An alysis Unit, working directly with the crime analysts, crime prevention officers, and sworn o fficers. Due to her inte rnship opportunity, she gained an enthusiasm for crime mapping and anal ysis and would like to have the opportunity to work in a law enforcement setti ng. Mrs. Martin will receive a Ma ster of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning in December 2009, and looks forw ard to putting her education to full use. In addition to pursuing knowledge through education, Misty enjoys spending time with her family and pets, and traveling.