Citation
Exploring 'Transparent Security': A Case Study of the Alachua County Courthouse Entrance Lobby in Gainesville, Florida

Material Information

Title:
Exploring 'Transparent Security': A Case Study of the Alachua County Courthouse Entrance Lobby in Gainesville, Florida
Creator:
SAHOO, SMITA
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Architectural design ( jstor )
Courthouses ( jstor )
Crime prevention ( jstor )
Criminal justice ( jstor )
Criminals ( jstor )
End users ( jstor )
Fear of crime ( jstor )
Interior design ( jstor )
Rational choice theory ( jstor )
Security guards ( jstor )
Alachua County ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Smita Sahoo. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
11/30/2006
Resource Identifier:
445540837 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EXPLORING “TRANSPARENT SECURITY”: A CASE STUDY OF THE ALACHUA COUNTY COURTHOUSE ENTRANCE LOBBY IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA By SMITA SAHOO 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 INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Smita Sahoo

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to the community of architects and interior designers.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Learning never to say no to a vision -Dr. Meg Portillo, 1991 Numerous individuals have contributed to the success of this research with advice, support and encouragement. My most sincer e thanks go to Drs. Mary Jo Hasell and Richard H. Schneider, without whose efforts and support this project would have never been completed. I would especially like to thank Dr. Richard C. Hollinger for encouraging and helping me throughout my re search and for helping me to establish contacts with Judge Stan Morris – chief J udge of the Alachua County Courthouse – and Mr. Timothy Crowe – well renowned CPTED (C rime Prevention through Environmental Design) consultant. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Judge Stan Mo rris for allowing me to use the Alachua County Courthouse—Criminal Justice as my research setting and Mr. Ted McFetridge, the court administrator, fo r permitting me to conduct the survey. I would also like to thank Ms. Jan Chesser and Ms. Barbara Dawicke for sharing their information and knowledge about the Alachua County Courthouse. I owe a very special thanks to Dr. Meg Portillo, our department chair, for her permission to use her class in this study a nd for her sincere enc ouragement, support and interest in this topic. I thank Mr. Ronald V. Clarke for granti ng permissions to us e the Matrix of 25 Situational Crime Prevention Opportunity Redu cing Techniques. I am indebted to Mr.

PAGE 5

v Donald J. Dwore, FAIA, Principal, Spillis Candela DMJM, Mr. Timothy Crowe, renowned CPTED consultant, Mr. Mark Wunder lin and Mr. Todd Orr, architects of Dana Larson Roubal (DLR) Group, Mr. Larry Wilson of Rink Associates and Mr. Atlas Randy for sharing their knowledge and encourag ing me throughout the research. I thank McGraw-Hill Education to grant me the permission to re print some of their pictur es. My most sincere thanks go to Carolin e Cardone who unselfishly critiqued the contents and helped me in editing this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my family b ack in India and all my friends for their patience, support and encouragement.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................xi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of Purpose....................................................................................................2 Significance..................................................................................................................3 Assumptions Underlying the Study..............................................................................5 Research Hypothesis.....................................................................................................5 Scope of the Study........................................................................................................6 Summary.......................................................................................................................6 Concept and Operational Definitions...........................................................................7 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................9 Background to the Problem: History of American Courthouse Design.......................9 New 21st Century Trend in the Courthous e Design, the Significance of an Appropriate Entrance Lobby Design and the Preference for Transparent Security..................................................................................................................12 “Transparent Security”: Bala ncing Security and Openness........................................13 Courthouse Physical Environmen t, Behavior and Perception....................................16 Morphological Analysis, User Assessme nt and Post-occupancy Evaluation Form, Space and Behavior.....................................................................................18 Morphological Analysis......................................................................................18 User Assessment and Po st-occupancy Evaluation..............................................18 “Perception of Personal Safe ty” and “Fear of Crime”................................................20 Working Hypothesis and Th eoretical Framework......................................................22 Situational Crime Prevention Theory..................................................................22 Routine Activity Theory (RAT)..........................................................................23 Rational Choice Theory (RCT)...........................................................................25 Matrix of 25 Situational Crime Preven tion Opportunity-Reducing Techniques........25

PAGE 7

vii Increasing Perceived Effort..................................................................................27 Harden targets...............................................................................................27 Control access to facilities............................................................................27 Screen entry/exits.........................................................................................27 Deflect offenders..........................................................................................28 Control tools and weapons or controlling facilitators..................................28 Increasing Perceived Risks..................................................................................29 Extend guardianship.....................................................................................29 Assist natural surveillance............................................................................31 Reduce anonymity........................................................................................31 Utilize place managers.................................................................................31 Strengthen formal surveillance.....................................................................32 Reducing Anticipated Rewards............................................................................32 Conceal targets.............................................................................................32 Remove targets.............................................................................................32 Identify property...........................................................................................32 Disrupt markets............................................................................................33 Deny benefits................................................................................................33 Reduce Provocations...........................................................................................33 Reduce frustration and stress........................................................................33 Avoid disputes..............................................................................................33 Reduce emotional arousal............................................................................33 Neutralize peer pressure...............................................................................33 Discourage imitation....................................................................................34 Remove Excuses..................................................................................................34 Set rules........................................................................................................34 Post instructions...........................................................................................34 Alert conscience...........................................................................................34 Assist compliance.........................................................................................35 Control drugs /alcohol..................................................................................35 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)....................................35 Conclusion..................................................................................................................36 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................38 Plan of Research Methodology...................................................................................38 Research Setting.........................................................................................................39 Research Participants..................................................................................................40 The Alachua County Courthouse Architects and Designers’ Intentions and Goals...41 Pre-Study of the Research Setting..............................................................................42 Morphological Analysis Technique.....................................................................42 User Assessment Analysis....................................................................................44 The Perception of Personal Security in the Entrance Lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse............................................................................................................47

PAGE 8

viii Research Participants of the Survey....................................................................47 Procedure.............................................................................................................48 Instruments..........................................................................................................49 Summary.....................................................................................................................51 4 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................53 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................54 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................57 Recommendations for Architects, Designe rs and Courthouse Facility Planners.......58 Recommendations for Redesigning the Entrance Lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse.............................................................................................................59 Conclusion..................................................................................................................64 APPENDIX A LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE STAN MORRIS.........................................................65 B MORPHOLOGICAL CUES FO R UNDERSTANDING BUILDINGS....................67 C ASSESSMENT TOOL: PRE-DESIGN DEVELOPMENT .....................................70 D SCALE FOR RECORDING BE HAVIOR AND ACTIVITIES................................78 E USER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................79 F ALACHUA COUNTY COURT HOUSE PERMISSION LETTER...........................80 G UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTIT UTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (UFIRB) PERMISSION LETTER.............................................................................................81 H INFORMED CONSENT FORM................................................................................82 I QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE US ERS AT THE ALACHUA COUNTY COURTHOUSE ENTRANCE LOBBY.....................................................................84 J THE NUMBER OF VISITS BY TH E LOBBY USERS TO THE ALACHUA COUNTY COURTHOUSE........................................................................................94 K RESULTS OF PAIRED SAMPLE TEST..................................................................95 L GENERAL FEAR FACTOR (Question 3 and 4)....................................................................................................100 M USERS’ OPINION ABOUT THE SECU RITY OF THE ENTRANCE LOBBY (Question 5)..............................................................................................................101

PAGE 9

ix N USERS’ OPINION ABOUT THE SECURITY SCREENIN G STATION (Question 6)..............................................................................................................104 O USERS’ OPINION ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF THE ENTRANCE LOBBY (Question 8)..............................................................................................................108 P WAY FINDING (Questions 9 and 10).................................................................................................111 Q DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS (Question 11, 12, 13 and 14)....................................................................................112 R MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION.........................................................114 S MULTIVARIATE TESTS (b) GENERAL LINEAR MODEL.............................117 T COPYRIGHT STATEMENT FOR USING THE MATRIX OF 25 SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY REDUCING TECHNIQUES.........................................................................................................118 U COPYRIGHTS AND PERMI SSIONS FROM MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION...........................................................................................................119 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................130

PAGE 10

x LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Matrix of 25 situational crime prevention opportunity-reducing techniques.............26 3-1 Description of key concepts used in the questionnaire (R efer to APPENDIX J)........51 K-1 Comparison of user percepti ons of personal safety in th e six zones of the entrance lobby, Question 2.....................................................................................................95

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1Exterior example of a traditional courthouse..............................................................10 2-2Exterior example of a modern courthouse..................................................................13 2-3 Example of an aesthetically pleasi ng entrance lobby of U.S. Courthouse, Covington, KY.........................................................................................................15 2-4 Example of an aesthetically pleasing en trance lobby of Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, MO ......................................................................................15 2-5 “Problem analysis triangle” (PAT).............................................................................24 2-6 Example of extended guardianshi p. This is a poor design option.............................30 2-7 Example of extended guardianship. This is a good design option.............................30 3-1 The diagram illustrates the six different zones of the entrance lobby under observation...............................................................................................................45 3-2 Photo chartshowing the views of the six different zones of the entrance lobby.. ....49 5-1 Original Alachua County Courthouse entrance lobby layout.....................................61 5-2 Schematic diagram of a proposed re design of the Alachua County Courthouse entrance lobby layout ..............................................................................................62 5-3 Redesigned Alachua County Courthouse entrance lobby layout....... .......................63

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Interior Design EXPLORING “TRANSPARENT SECURITY”: A CASE STUDY OF THE ALACHUA COUNTY COURTHOUSE ENTRANCE LOBBY IN GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA By Smita Sahoo May 2006 Chair: Mary Joyce Hasell Cochair: Richard H. Schneider Major Department: Interior Design This study explores the how courthouse lobby design affects e nd users’ behavior, perception and cognitive judgments about person al security, as well as their impressions about the effectiveness of th e lobby’s security systems. This study’s hypothesis contends that transparent security can actually make users feel less secure and less safe than conventional, or “visib le,” security measures such as physical barriers, visible cameras [CCTVs], or security guards. It is based on two crimerelated theories— Routine Activity and Rati onal Choice —which tell us that when low risk of detection or apprehen sion accompanies a suitable crim e target, offenders are more likely to commit a crime. But does transparent security also affect the perceptions of legitimate users? This study aims to answer that question by examining how legitimate users perceive personal safety and security within environm ents that employ transparent security strategies. An additional aim was to assess how well the courthouse designers’

PAGE 13

xiii intentions—that is, the creati on of a lobby that is both secu re and friendly—were relayed to the public. The study was conducted in three parts— first, determining the designers’ intentions in planning the courthouse lobby, second, conducting a pre-study that analyzed the reality of the courthouse lobby design, and finally, surveying 100 lobby users to assess user perceptions and cognitive judgments about built environments that employ transparent security strategies. After analyzing the study’s data with a seri es of the paired sample t-tests, results support the study’s hypothesis that areas with invisible security (transparent security) can actually make users feel less secure and less safe than areas with visible security. Henceforth, we are likely to be lieve that the original design intent of creating a lobby that is both secure and friendly was not entirel y achieved. While most users perceived the space as open and friendly, several areas were seen as unsecured. This pilot study filled a knowledge gap by providing evidence about how transparent security strategies affect end us ers’ cognitive judgments, and also contributed to the body of crime prevention literature as a whole.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Courthouses are a symbol of justice, aut hority and democracy. But ironically, they are also targets for a variety of risks ranging from external terrorist attacks to internal violence and crime (McMahon, 1978). Thus, it is important for designers to consider both safety and symbolism in the design of a courthouse, creating secure facilities that also convey the themes of democracy, free dom, justice and friendliness to the public. In the wake of recent terrorist attacks in the U.S., there is a renewed urgency to protect federal and government buildings. In cidents such as the bombing at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on Apr il 19, 1995, and terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, have made clear how important it is to protect the nation’s buildings and those who use them. In addition, recent violent incidents, such as courthouse murders at Atlanta’s Fulton County Courthouse, have underscored the growing worries about the sa fety of America's judicial facilities (Oliphant, 2005). So the question facing designers is this: how can we maximize security in these courthouses without compromising aesthetic s or the quality of the space? Must courthouses become isolated armed fortresses in order to be secure, or is it possible to effectively balance security and design, crea ting an environment that is both safe and welcoming for workers and the general public ? How do designers and architects mediate the seemingly antithetical issues of security and aesthetics?

PAGE 15

2 Before answering these questions it is im portant to understand how people perceive personal safety within these different built envi ronments. Do they feel more secure with “visible security” measures or are they comf ortable with “transparent security” devices like hidden cameras invisible to the untrained ey e? Definitions of these terms follow this section in the concepts and operational defi nitions. In addition, are built environments that are perceived to be aest hetically pleasing necessarily perceived as safe areas? Statement of Purpose This study explores the links between courthouse lobby design, its end users’ behavior, their per ceptions and cognitive judgments about personal security, and impressions about the effectiveness of the lobbies’ security systems. Recent design trends coupled with advances in security technologies have increased the use of transparent security in cour thouse design. However, if th ese security measures are difficult to see, end users might perceive th e built environments to be susceptible to violence and crime. According to Situational Crime Prevention theory ( Clarke & Felson, 1993 and Clarke, 1997), potential offende rs make rational decisions before committing a crime. These decisions are based, in part, on cues they pick up in the surrounding environment. Similarly, several empirical studies on ‘fear of crime’ suggest that user perceptions of personal security and safety are often affected by the surrounding environment (Gottfredson & Taylor, 1986; Skogan, 1986; Na sar & Fisher, 1993; and Loewen, Steel & Suedfeld, 1993). Potential offenders and le gitimate users alike judge their personal safety, security and vulnerability based on th e environmental cues within their immediate surroundings. This case study examined the use of transparent security in one Gainesville

PAGE 16

3 Florida courthouse entrance lobby in an effort to determine the affect such systems have on user perceptions and cognitive judgments. In order to better understand the research setting, the case st udy also employed a pre-study which examined the physical design of the courthouse lobby and the resulting user behaviors. This pre-study data provi ded the necessary background information for understanding a survey of user perceptions in the courthouse entrance lobby. The focus of this study was to asse ss how well the courthouse de signers’ intentions—that is, creating a secure and friendly entrance l obby—was relayed to the public. Does the general public feel safe in an envi ronment with transparent security? Significance In light of recent terrorist attacks and other violent inci dents, building owners are more focused than ever on “achieving transp arent building security” (Nadel, 2004). In 2003, the GSA (General Services Administratio n), the agency in charge of helping federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services, and management policies, developed the Design Standards for U.S. Court Facilities. These de sign standards were de veloped in order to provide comprehensive programming and de sign criteria for United States Courts facilities. According to the GSA, ‘secu rity budget' now constitutes a significant percentage in the tota l investments in buildi ngs and building systems. In addition, GSA has developed the ‘Standard Practice for Meas uring Cost Risk of Buildings and Building Systems’ and ‘ASTM E 1765’ to manage and evaluate both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of security in any single model (U.S General Services Administration, 2005). Unlike county projects, federal projects re serve a substantial amount of funds for security design. Associ ate architect Todd Orr of the Dana Larson

PAGE 17

4 Roubal (DLR) Group commented that, “the impl ementation of ‘blast-resistant design—an antiterrorism design strategy’ into a buildi ng comes with a cost and unless the project budget has money for such structural upgrades , they are not always part of federal projects and certainly hard to achieve on c ounty projects.” Nevertheless, building owners continue to invest huge expe nditures on antiterrorism design strategies such as blastresistant design and “transparent security design.” Therefore, it is important that designers understand how these strategies affect end users’ cognitive judgments. Understanding the fit between the lobby’s form and its users’ be haviors will better inform courthouse designers on user needs, and enable them to develop more effective courthouse design solutions. Many studies have examined user perceptions of safety and security within urban, educational and residential settings, in cluding Nancy LaVigne’s (1997) study on the Washington D.C.’s subway system, and Na sar and Jones (1997) study on the Wexner center for the visual arts at Ohio state univers ity. However, most of these studies focused on urban planning and outdoor elements and not on indoor environmen t. While Archea’s (1985) study on three bank robberies focused on interior environmental cues, offenders’ perceptions and behaviors, little has been published on legitimate user perceptions of personal safety and security in real time and space. And very few, if any, studies have examined perceptions within courthouse lobby interiors. This pilot study will help fill that knowledge gap, providing evidence about th e effects anti-terrorism design strategies have on end users cognitive judgments, while also contributing to the body of crime prevention literature as a whole.

PAGE 18

5 As discussed earlier, several empirical studies (Archea, 198 5; LaVigne, 1997; and Nasar & Jones, 1997) have examined how offenders make rational decisions before committing a crime based in part on environmental cues; however, there are no published studies on how legitimate users make judgments about their personal safety and security within built environments. My study will addr ess this issue by examining how legitimate users perceive safety and security in the entrance lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse at Gainesville. Assumptions Underlying the Study Several assumptions underlie th is study. First, the study assumes that all of the 100 research survey participants gave an unbiased opinion about their pe rceptions of personal security in the entrance lobby. In answering the survey quest ions, the study also assumes participants were not under a ny kind of influence, either of the courthouse security guards, staff or any previous personal experiences with courth ouse authorities. The study further assumes that particip ant perceptions were affect ed only by the surrounding built environment and not by the external climatic conditions. Finally, the study also assumes that the convenience sample represented a grou p of general legitimate courthouse users. Research Hypothesis While many designers hope transparent security measures will make users feel safer, this study’s hypothesis contends that tr ansparent security can actually make users feel less secure and less safe than conventional, or ‘visib le’, security measures such as physical barriers, visible camer as [CCTVs], or security guards. Two crime-related theories— Routine Activity and Rational Choice theories—tell us that when low risk of detection or apprehension accompanies a suitab le crime target, offenders are more likely to commit a crime. Invisible security m easures and imperceptible guardianship may

PAGE 19

6 minimize offenders’ sense of risk, thereby in advertently ‘encouragi ng’ crime (Clarke & Felson, 1993). However, while Routine Activi ty and Rational Choice theories give us a partial understanding of how crim inals perceive security m easures, they do little to enhance our understanding of the average, or legitimate, user’s perceptions. This study will address this very issue, examining how legitimate users perceive personal safety and security within built envi ronments that employ transparent security strategies. Scope of the Study Several limitations affected th e outcome of this study. Fi rst, it was conducted in a single courthouse entrance lobby de signed with transparent securi ty measures in place, as per the new design trend. Ideally, the study s hould be conducted in two different types of courthouse entrance lobbies, one following a traditional design and the other, the new design trend. In that case, the findings could be compared. However, time and resources dictated that this research focus on just one case. Secondly, the samples chosen for this study were convenience samples, chosen during the times at which the researcher was in the courthouse. While a scientific random sample would present less bias, time and resource restrictions necess itated a convenience sample. Summary As discussed earlier, Court houses along with symbols of justice, authority and democracy, are also potential targets for a variet y of risks ranging from external terrorist attacks to internal violence. It makes sense then that the property managers and owners are making substantial investments on the secu rity systems and design strategies of the courthouses. Also, the designers are more focused than ever in creating secure facilities that also convey the themes of democracy, free dom, justice and friendliness to the public.

PAGE 20

7 But, on the other hand, it also becomes importa nt to evaluate whether or not these huge investments made on implementing various secur ity design strategies are logical or not. What are the affects of these strategies on th e normal users? Are they effective and are they solving the purpose? My study makes an attempt to test the effectiveness of one such security design strategy—Transparent Security— in one Al achua County Courthouse Entrance Lobby at Gainesville, Florida. Concept and Operational Definitions Courthouse security. Courthouse security is defined as “a process of setting up barriers that combine to incr ease detention and apprehensi on, thus making criminal or violent acts too dangerous or costly” (McMahon, 1978, p. 5). Visible security. “Visible guardianship elements mean the presence of visible security like physical barriers, visible camer as, security personnel, guards, etc.” (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Transparent security. In buildings like courthouses, ‘transparent security’ refers to security measures not readily visible to the general public (Jandura & Campbell, 2004, p. 6.2). Being invisible, these security de vices—which can include security guards, barricades, and Closed Circuit TV monitors—do not frighten or intimidate visitors, thus “maintaining the philosophy of openness and friendliness critical to public sector structures” (Weisberg, 2004, p.1.8). Personal security/safety. Security can be defined as the freedom from risk, danger, doubt, anxiety, or fear. Personal security / safety is the sa fety of an individual.

PAGE 21

8 Potential offenders. Potential offenders can be identif ied as “motivated individuals who engage in crime” (Cohen & Felson, 1979) or “someone who breaks the law” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981). Legitimate users. Those users who are in the co urthouse premises for conducting their duties and responsibilities, and not engaging themselves in criminal activities. User perceptions or cognitive judgments of personal security. It can be defined as users’ intellectual judgment of their personal well being or safety. Impressions of the effectiv eness of the courthouse lobbies’ security systems. It is the users’ notion or opinion about their pe rsonal safety and well be ing in the presence of the courthouse lobby security.

PAGE 22

9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Background to the Problem: History of American Courthouse Design Historically, American courthouses pr esent an imposing, grandiose presence, achieved through size, siting and formal architect ural elements such as columns, domes, clock towers and grand entrances (Harde nbergh, 1991, see figure 2-1). Courthouse architecture often reflects th e concepts of symmetry, securi ty, order and justice. These external principles ar e also integrated in courthouse interiors. Initially, courthouse interiors had very plain furnishing and fini shes. But with the economic expansion and population growth of the mid-nineteenth century, courthouses gained increasing importance in the community, and art and sculpture became more common in both the exterior and interior designs. Many major c ourthouse buildings feat ured murals, stained glass skylights, statues, mosaics, paintings and carved details. However, at the same time, dark interior color treatments and hea vy materials often gave courthouses a cold and formidable appearance (The American Ba r Association and The American Institute of Architects, 1972). Throughout history, courthouses possessed a powerful role within the community and often provided a visual reference for pe ople approaching a town. The courthouse was usually centrally located, serving as an anchor for many commercial and community activities. However, many of the courthouses built before the 1940’s were not designed to house modern circulation patt erns and security needs.

PAGE 23

10 According to Hardenbergh (1991, p. 37), The design of a courthouse is the underl ying scheme that governs its function. The image is how that scheme is perceived and the behavior it provokes in the people that use the courthouse. The special identity of the courthouse has remained remarkably consistent in the United States since colonial times, re gardless of architectural idiom. Figure 2-1 Exterior example of a traditional courthouse . From Building Security: Handbook for Architectural Planning and Design (p. 9.15), by Barbara A. Nadel, 2004, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright 2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. Reprinted with permission. Notable Incidents of Terrorism, Court house Violence and the Need to Improve U.S. Courthouse Security The recent terrorist attacks of Septem ber 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center in New York City and the U.S. Pentagon in Washington DC, the 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, as well as several other notable incidents of terrorism1 within the Unites States have resulted an increased focus on security in most 1 Notable Incidents of Terrorism, Violence, an d Crime within the U.S (Nadel, 2004, p.1.9). U.S. capitol explosion near Senate cham ber, Washington, D.C –November 7, 1983 World Trade Center bombing, New York City – February 26, 1993 Olympic park bombing, Atla nta, Georgia – July 27, 1996

PAGE 24

11 U.S. government and federal buildings (Nadel, 2004). Recent years have seen significant increases in both external threats and in ternal violence in courthouses. The NSA (National Security Agency) analyzed various security incidents in more than 200 courthouses in the country and listed the mo st frequently committed acts of violence (McMahon, 1978). Recent examples include the March 2005 murders in an Atlanta courthouse, which occurred just 11 days afte r the shooting deaths of a federal judge's husband and mother by a disgruntled plainti ff in Chicago. These incidents underscore growing worries about the protection of Am erica's justice system (Oliphant, 2005). The U.S Secret Service and U.S Marshals Serv ice recorded about 3 ,096 incidents involving the federal judicial officials from 1980-1993, an d this figure is expected to double in the following decade (Hardenbergh & Weiner, 2001). By nature, courthouses bring together judge s, attorneys, lawyers, jurors, bailiffs, security personnel, defendants, plaintiffs along with other members of the public. This often results in direct and emotional confr ontations between adversaries. In most courtroom proceedings, at least one of the pa rties leaves feeling disappointed, vengeful, or angry (Warren, 2001). It makes sense, th en, that violence and crime in courthouses usually involves courthouses and trial participants. Thr eats can occur anywhere in a courthouse premises; thus, the most effec tive courthouse security systems may be incorporated into the desi gn of the building itself. Abortion clinic bombing, Birmingha m, Alabama – January 27, 1997 Shooting of ob-gyn Dr. Bernett Slepian, Amherst, New York – October 23, 1998 Anthrax mailings, New York and Washington, D.C – September 2000 Snipers, Washington D.C., area – October – November2003

PAGE 25

12 New 21st Century Trend in the Courthouse Design, the Significance of an Appropriate Entrance Lobby Design and th e Preference for Transparent Security In an effort to address growing secur ity concerns, courthouse designers have implemented different strategies. In the past , “various pieces of furniture and equipment were placed in lobbies as secu rity stations and barriers to the main entry” (Nadel, 2004, p.14.1). Unfortunately, this arrangement of equipment and furniture (one form of “visible security”) is often visually chaotic and a concern among most government officials and property owners. Several st udies conducted on co rporate design (Yee & Gustafson, 1983; Ornstein, 1992; Gifford, 1997; Hatch & Schultz, 1997; Gifford, 2002; and Park, 2005) have supporte d the idea that a company’s image is born at the entrance and reception area and determined in part by th e design of and objects within that area. The same holds true for a courthouse. The symbolism expressed by the courthouse building’s exterior should continue through th e interior of the bu ilding, commencing with the entrance lobby (Hardenbergh, 1991). A clutte red and chaotic interior does not reflect the themes of dignity, order, and justice a courthouse should convey. Casey L. Jones (2004, p. 14.1) stated, Lobbies of federal properties are gateways to governmental and judicial services. They shape the visitor’s perception of the federal government. Integrating good design2 and security check points in federal building lobbies convey professionalism and assure visitors their personal safety and welfare is a primary concern. In order to address the haphazard appearan ce of federal and government entrance lobbies, the General Services Admi nistration (GSA), instituted the “First Impressions 2 ‘Good design’ of a courthouse entrance lobby, as per the definitions provided by the GSA (General Services Administration) in the Design Notebook For Federal Building Lobby Security , means an effective and well integrated security systems. In other words, to achieve a delicate balance of architectural design and security requirements in the entrance lobby (p. 02).

PAGE 26

13 Program” in 1998. The main goal of this program is to ensure that the federal and government buildings present a good first impressi on to all visitors. Part of this goal is the incorporation of a sub tle, unobtrusive security syst em. The newest trend in courthouse design incorporates the concept of “transparent securi ty” in an effort to create a more pleasant, enjoyable environment fo r users (Nadel, 2004, see figure 2-2). The beauty of such security systems is that they allow courthouses entrances to be both aesthetically pleasing and safe. Figure 2-2 Exterior example of a modern courthouse, 1960s Modernist building. From Building Security: Handbook for Architectural Planning and Design (p. 9.18), by Barbara A. Nadel, 2004, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright 2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. Reprinted with permission. “Transparent Security”: Balancing Security and Openness In terms of building use, the first and the most critical issue in courthouse design is access to the court system. People may be unwilli ng to take their disputes to court if they feel intimidated or threatened, and hence, access to justice requires freedom from intimidation, fear, threat, and violence (W arren, 2001). Also, “under the rule of law, court proceedings are supposed to be open and public” (Warren, 2001, p. 21). Therefore,

PAGE 27

14 successful courthouse designs embrace ‘ope nness,’ which, in terms of federal architecture, is defined as “a symbol of ines timable value. It is a government of the people and our public buildings must say th ey are about people and our democratic values.” (Breyer, 2004, p. 14.1) Courthouse security is defined as “a proce ss of setting up barriers that combine to increase detention and apprehension, thus ma king criminal or violent acts too dangerous or costly” (McMahon, 1978, p. 5). However, this does not have to mean building bunkers or fortress-like courthouses. The insta llation of low-profile, high-tech equipment in strategic locations may, in fact, be both hi ghly effective and imperc eptible to the public eye? In buildings like courthouses, the term “t ransparent security” refers to security measures not readily visible to the gene ral public (Jandura & Campbell, 2004, p. 6.2, see figures 2-3 & 2-4). Being invisi ble, these security devices do not frighten or intimidate visitors, thus “maintaining the philosophy of openness and friendliness critical to public sector structures” (Weisberg, 2004, p.1.8).

PAGE 28

15 Figure 2-3 Example of an aesthetically pl easing entrance lobby of U.S. Courthouse, Covington, KY due to the incorporati on of transparent security design strategy. From Building Security: Handbook fo r Architectural Planning and Design (p. 14.15), by Barbara A. Nadel, 2004, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright 2004 by The McGraw-Hill Comp anies. Reprinted with permission. Figure 2-4 Example of an aesthetically pl easing entrance lobby of Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, MO due to the incorporation of the transparent security design strategy. From Building Security: Handbook for Architectural Planning and Design (p. 14.29), by Barbara A. Nadel, 2004, New York: McGraw-Hill. Copyright 2004 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. Reprinted with permission.

PAGE 29

16 Courthouse Physical Environment, Behavior and Perception While the concern for and a ttention to security is im perative in courthouse design, the building itself needn’t resemble a fortress or a bomb shelter in order to be safe (McMahon, 1978). Conversely, the de sign should not be absolutely barrier-free and open, according to Hardenbergh, & Weiner (2001, p. 16), The requirement that courts be free and open complicates security planning, making it more difficult to deliver assured protection. Court managers and security officers struggle to provide security w ithout jeopardizing the administration of justice. The identification, through resear ch, of appropriate security practices, procedures, programs, and polic ies can alleviate the problem. As this quote suggests, at times an overly open or transparent design can complicate security planning. Situational Crime Prevention theory (C larke & Felson, 1993) focuses in part on how environmental cues influence a person’ s perception and, eventually, behavior. According to this theory, three elements must be present in order for a crime to take place: a motivated potential offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian (Clarke, 1997). Transparent security measures would seem to fulfill the last criterion, since, even though the “capable guard ian” (the security device) is in fact present. Nonetheless, its lack of vi sibility makes it seem absent. Also, various empirical studies on ‘fear of crime’ suggest that the surrounding environment influences not only potential offenders’ perceptions about personal security and safety, but legitimate users’ perceptions as well (Gottf redson & Taylor, 1986; Skogan, 1986; Loewen, Steel & Suedfeld, 1993; and Nasar & Fisher, 1993). These arguments are further elaborated in the later section on the ‘perception of safety’ a nd ‘fear of crime.’ Gr iebel & Phillips (2001, p. 119) argued that “the archit ectural treatments of form and space can create a sense of solemnity which in turn influences the wa y people comport themselves.” However,

PAGE 30

17 while some treatments can create a serene, calming environment, others may have the opposite effect. Therefore, th e kind of physical environment that users encounter at the courthouse makes a difference; people form perceptions about the courthouse based on the design of the built environment (Maass et.a l, 2000). The design of the facility can either enhance security and sa fety or increase the possibili ty of violence (Griebel & Phillips, 2001, p. 119). This knowledge is crucia l for a designer attempting to create an entrance lobby that ne eds to be highly secured (H ardenbergh & Weiner, 2001, p. 31). Furthermore, such a space emphasizes the need for interior designers, architects, and planners to understand the comp lex relationship between the forms and spaces in the interior built environmen t, as well as user behaviors and perceptions . In order to understand this relationship, we must firs t analyze and understand the logic and the meaning behind the forms of th ese built environments, document the actual usage of these spaces, and finally, ask end users how they perceive the space. To assimilate this information, this case study employs a pre-study of the research setting comprised of a Morphological Analysis of the physical space and a Post-Occupancy Evaluation and Behavioral Analysis of the users in the entrance lobby (Definitions of these tools follows this section). When comp iled and examined in context, findings from the Morphological Analysis, Behavioral An alysis, Post-Occupanc y Evaluation, and the survey of 100 courthouse users may indicate th e effectiveness of th e lobby design. These findings will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the fit between the social behaviors, perceptions and form of the built environment of this particular entrance lobby.

PAGE 31

18 Morphological Analysis, User Assessment and Post-occupancy Evaluation Form, Space and Behavior Morphological Analysis Morphology is a Greek word, which can be broken down into (morphe), meaning “form or shape”, and (logos), meaning “disc ourse or logic”. Hence, Morphology is the logic of form (Hasell, 2001). Also, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “morphology” is the study of structure or form. A Morphological Analysis of the building is a comprehensive formal analysis that allows us to understand the logic behind the fo rms, its totality (i.e . the completeness in the list of ideas in a design) and its unity (i.e. the complete interrelationship among these ideas) (Doll, 1975). This proce ss will help to analyze the design of the existing entrance lobby at the Alachua County Courthouse for ex amples of totality and unity, “which seems to be the real measure of truth a nd wholeness in a design” (Doll, 1975, p. 3). Morphological cues provide a means to understand how the spatial features, organizations, and materials of the building ar e interrelated and work with and against one another to create a design. Henceforth, this study will examine various morphological cues derived from an examination of design features in order to provide a complete understanding of the physical setting in the entrance lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse. User Assessment and Post-occupancy Evaluation Environmental psychology is the study of transactions between individuals and their physical settings. In these transactions , individuals both change and are changed by the environment (Gifford, 2002, p.1). Hence, a comprehensive User Assessment allows us to study user behavior within the built environment.

PAGE 32

19 A User Assessment can be defined as “a t horough description of the behaviors of the users in the building and appropriate envi ronment and behavior theories that analyze the observations” (IND 2635/5521, Spring 2005, Assignment adapted from Abott, Wansor & Hasell, 1999, p.1). In addition, a beha vioral analysis also examines whether and how the environment fits the users’ needs. And, Zimring and Reizenstein (1980) defi ne a Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as “the examination of the effectiveness of designed environments for human users” (p. 270). According to Zimring (1987, p.271), POEs have three basic goals: 1. Setting sensitivity: to learn as much as possible about the setting, including its specific users, history, structure etc 2. Generalizability: to be able to generali ze as accurately as possible about some larger category of settings, users, or times 3. Precision: to be able to make statemen ts of research outcomes that is as unambiguous as possible The most significant goal of a POE is applic ation of the results to improve the same or similar settings. POEs often focus on a singl e type of building; by analyzing that type of building (versus manipulating or changing it ), the investigator can asses its strengths and weaknesses, and hopefully acquire enough in formation to be able to benefit both it and others of its type (Sommer, 1983, p.136). In Chapter 4, a comprehensive POE (PostOccupancy Evaluation) of the entrance lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse will assess how occupants use the courthouse spaces and establish a formal and practical understanding of the effectiveness of the building design. These findings helped in the preparation of a survey of the research participants about their per ceptions of personal security.

PAGE 33

20 “Perception of Personal Safety” and “Fear of Crime” In their 1987 study, the measurement of fear of crime , Ferraro and LaGrange systematically reviewed the way fear of crime has been measured in research over a period of fifteen previous years. Their findings recognized some weaknesses in past research designs, for which Ferraro and La Grange suggested improvements for future research. According to Ferraro and LaGra nge, “fear of crime” and “perceptions of security” are two separate constructs. U nderstanding the difference between these two constructs will provide a better insight of the present study. My study analyzes the likelihood that certain crimes may take place in a particular area but not the respondents’ fear of these crimes actually occurring. Although fear of crime and perceived safety would seem to be moderately correlated, they are in fact vastly different from each other (Lee, 1982a and Warr & Stafford, 1983). The f ear of crime is based on an emotional construct whereas perception of safety fo llows an intellectual construct. Measures of fear of crime should tap the emotional stat e of fear; however this is distinct from perceptions of security , which are cognitive judg ments or concerns about crime. Yin (1980, p. 496) further delineates between the two when he states, “Though fear of crime is almost never explicitly defined by researchers, their measurements suggest that such fear is imp licitly defined as the percep tion of probability of being victimized.” It can be further elaborated as “the amount of anxi ety and concern that persons have of being a victim” (Sund een & Mathieu, 1976b:55). On the other hand, perception of safety can be defined as the cognitive assessment/judgment of safety (Rountree & Land, 1996, p.1353). “Fear of crim e refers to the negative emotional reaction generated by crime or symbols asso ciated with crime and are conceptually

PAGE 34

21 distinct from either judgment s or assessments (risk) or c oncerns (values) about crime” (Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987, p.73). This understanding of both constructs is par ticularly relevant for this present study, as it focuses specifically on the cognitive perception of personal safety and not on the feeling of fear. The survey instrument was designed to tap users’ cognitive judgments about their personal security and not their emoti onal state of fear. Th erefore, this study’s findings may provide evidence that either s upports or disputes Fe rraro and LaGrange’s arguments. Fear of crime derives from several inde pendent variables, such as demographic factors like age, race, gender, education (Yin, 1980; Box et al ., 1988; and LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989), whereas perception of security may not be affected by these independent variables. However, familiarity with an environment (Du Bow et al., 1979 and Silberman, 1981) and surrounding environmen tal cues (Gottfredson & Taylor, 1986; Skogan, 1986; Nasar & Fisher, 1993; and Loew en, Steel & Suedfeld, 1993) do affect both fearfulness and perceptions of crime. In his book Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design , Newman (1972) suggested th at certain “architectural physical features in the environment would en courage residents to exercise territorial control, which would reduce crime and fear” (Perkins et al, 1992). Similar studies conducted by Nasar & Jones (1997), Nasar & Fi sher (1993) and Fish er (1991), suggested that architecture and design affect the percep tion of safety and security among end users. This argument is further supported by thr ee studies done on bank robberies, which found that many criminals assess the potential for se eing and being seen at different locations

PAGE 35

22 within a setting and selectively adjust their be havior or position to attain their immediate objectives (Archea, 1985, p. 245). Even though these “perceptions of crime and safety do not necessarily reflect its realities” (Ito, 1993, p.385), the resulting climate of fear can have devastating effects on quality of life (Newman, 1972; Silberma n, 1981; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Warr & Stafford, 1983; Warr, 1987; Perkins et al., 1992; and Nasar & Fisher, 1993). It lowers the quality of life of elderly peopl e (Lebowitz, 1975) and affects th e daily routines of people and creates stress and anxiety (Reynolds & Blyth, 1976). It may also damage the public perception of and support for an institution (Smith, 1988). Therefore, in order to be effective, a built environment must not only be safe and secure, but should also appear so, sending a clear message of security to its end users. And this is definitely essential fo r a courthouse’s built environment. Working Hypothesis and Theoretical Framework This study’s research hypothesis is that e nd users will perceive a built environment designed with transparent security as less sa fe than a built environment with visible security. This follows a theoretical fram ework based on Situational Crime Prevention theory. Situational Crime Prevention Theory Situational Crime Prevention theory (SCP ) is based on the premise that space and time management, environmental features, and physical design inter act with one another to affect opportunities for criminal behavior (Clarke & Felson, 1993). A departure from mainstream criminology, SCP focuses on the se ttings and “situations” that frame crime rather than upon the disposition, backgrounds or motivations of criminals. Its focus is, then, preventing the occurrence of crime rather than dete cting and punishing offenders

PAGE 36

23 (Clarke, n.d). Also, it seeks to forestall the o ccurrence of crime, rather than to detect and sanction offenders (Clarke, 1997). It seeks not to eliminate criminal or delinquent tendencies through improvement of society or its institutions, but merely to make criminal action less attractive to offenders. The theory suggests that opport unity for crime is a functi on of three major factors – risk, effort and reward that are mediated by the presence of provocative circumstances and by excuse mechanisms. These three elements are spelled out in Figure 2-5 below. SCP is supported by two additional crime theo ries, Routine Activity Theory and Rational Choice Theory. Routine Activity Theory (RAT) According to Routine Activity Theory (RAT), crime is most likely to occur in the presence of three factors: a suitable target , a potential offender and a lack of guardianship (Clarke & Felson, 1993). Moreover, crime patterns can be seen in the everyday, normal activities of offenders and victims that play out in the physical environment in which they live. Crime is routine in so much as it is strongly related to the normal activity and awareness spaces that criminals and their targets inhabit. A suitable target can be a person, object or pl ace. A modern courthouse, for example, could serve as a suitable target. Potential offenders can be identified as “motivated individuals who engage in cr ime” (Cohen & Felson, 1979) or “someone who breaks the law” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981). Guardianship elements (or lack thereof) can be comprised of both human and mechanical components. Human components are usually people such as a police pa trol, security guards, vigilant staff, coworkers, or neighbors. Some examples of mechanical comp onents include closed circuit television systems, security alarm devices, or screening systems. Whether human or

PAGE 37

24 mechanical, the presence of these guardians hip devices assists in deterring potential offenders from perpetrating a criminal act. According to Rational C hoice theory, a crime will likely be committed if the potential offender considers the target suitable and perceives a lack of effective guardianship. Chapter 4 will discuss how, in the new Alachua County Courthouse, lobby visitors cannot immediately identify security measures. This is in contrast to the ol d Alachua County courthouse, where security equipment and guards were blatantly visible. RAT also incorporates an approach to s ituational crime theory referred to as the “Problem Analysis Triangle.” Clarke (n.d). Figure 2-5 “Problem analysis t riangle” (P AT) Clarke (n.d). (R etrieved November 25,2004 From, http://www.crimere duction.gov.uk/learningzone/scp.htm) Reprinted with permission. The triangle illustrates the convergence of several factors that bear on the commission of a crime, including the presence of a potential offender, suitable target and absent guardians.

PAGE 38

25 Rational Choice Theory (RCT) According to Jeffery & Zahm (1993, p.337) , “the Rational Choice Theory focuses on the individual offender’s pe rception of the opportunity st ructure of each environment and his/her decision to maximize gain and minimize loss from the environment i.e. rationality as an aspect of the decision process.” Rational Choice Theory (Clarke & Felson, 1993) views criminal offenses as a re sult of a decision-making process in which the offender weighs the benefits and drawback s of a particular act before deciding to commit it. The considerations and choices are constrained by time, cognitive ability and information, resulting in ‘limited’ rath er than 'normal' offender rationale. Matrix of 25 Situational Crime Prev ention Opportunity-Reducing Techniques Over the past 15 years i.e. between 1990 and 2005, advances in our understanding of crime, crime reduction theory and the changes in crime itself have led to the development of a matrix of known opport unity-reducing crime prevention techniques (Clarke, n.d). Far more than just a colle ction of ad hoc methods, the theoretical framework of this matrix is firmly grounded in opportunity theory (Clarke & Cornish, 2003). The 25 techniques, most of which derive from rational choice theory, fit systematic patterns and rules which cut across every walk of life, making them applicable to a variety of crime situations. Of course, to be most effective, these prevention methods must be tailored to specific situations. However, overall, each t echnique functions by affecting offender perceptions with the inte nt of reducing crime opportunities. This is accomplished by: (1) increasing the perceived e ffort, (2) increasing perceived risks, (3) reducing anticipated rewards, (4) reduci ng provocations and (5) removing excuses (Clarke & Cornish, 2003).

PAGE 39

26 Table 2-1 (Clarke & Cornish, 2003) presen ts a matrix of these twenty five opportunity-reducing techniques depicting the “operation” of situation crime prevention theory by breaking it down into definable el ements and detailing specific intervention techniques. Table 2-1 Matrix of 25 situational crime prevention opportunity-reducing techniques TWENTY FIVE OPPORTUNITYREDUCING TECHNIQUES OF SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION THEORY I.Increasing perceived effort II.Increasing perceived risks III.Reducing anticipated rewards IV.Reduce provocations V.Removing excuse 1. Harden Targets immobilizers in cars,anti-robbery screens 6. Extend guardianship cocooning, neighborhood 11. Conceal targets gender-neutral phone directories off-street parking 16. Reduce frustration and stress efficient queuing soothing lighting 21. Set rules rental agreements hotel registration 2. Control access to facilities alley-gating entry phones 7. Assist natural surveillance improved street lighting neighborhood watch hotlines 12. Remove targets removable car radios pre-paid public phone cards 17. Avoid disputes fixed cab fares reduce crowding in pubs 22. Post instructions 'No parking' 'Private property' 3. Screen exits tickets needed electronic tags for libraries 8. Reduce anonymity taxi driver ID's 'how's my driving?' signs 13. Identify property property marking vehicle licensing 18. Reduce emotional arousal controls on violent porn 23. Alert conscience roadside speed display signs 'shoplifting is stealing' 4. Deflect offenders street closures in red light district separate toilets for women 9. Utilize place managers train employees to prevent crime support whistle blowers 14. Disrupt markets checks on pawn brokers licensed street vendors 19. Neutralize peer pressure 'idiots drink and drive' 'it's ok to say no' 24. Assist compliance litter bins public lavatories 5. Control tools/weapons toughened beer glasses photos on credit cards 10. Strengthen formal surveillance speed cameras CCTV in town centers 15. Deny benefits ink merchandise tags graffiti cleaning 20. Discourage imitation rapid vandalism repair V-chips in TV's 25. Control drugs /alcohol breathalyzers in pubs alcohol-free events (Source: Adapted from Clarke and Cornish, 2003) As previously discussed, the techniques in this matrix can be classified into five objectives: (I) Increasing Perceived E ffort, (II) Increasing Perceived Risks; (III) Reducing Anticipated Rewards, (IV) Reduce Provocations and (V) Removing Excuses. In the matrix,

PAGE 40

27 each objective is placed above five or so specific opportunity-reducing techniques, indicating that the objective can be achieved by implementing either all or most of the techniques below. These techniqu es can be explained as follows: Increasing Perceived Effort This category includes five techniques that might increase the effort of offender to commit a crime (La Vigne, 1997). The five techniques are: Harden targets One effective to reduce criminal oppor tunities is to obstruct the offender through target hardening. This increases the efforts associated with committing certain offences. For example, installing bars in front of walls often discourages graffiti writing (La Vigne, 1997); other target hardeners include immob ilizers in cars, anti-robbery screens, and physical barriers like locks, safes, and screens. Control access to facilities This refers to techniques that prevent potential offenders fr om accessing potential crime sites, which could include offices, fact ories, apartment complexes etc. Through controlled access or entry to such places, offenses require more effort than would otherwise be the case. One example of a sophisticated form of access control is the requirement of electronic personal identificati on numbers (PIN) in order to gain access to computer systems and bank accounts. Screen entry/exits Entry screening differs from access control in its purpose, which is less to exclude potential offenders than to detect thos e who do not conform to entry requirements (Clarke, 1997). These requirements may relate to the possession of necessary tickets or documents, or alternately, the prevention of prohibited or contraband items entering an

PAGE 41

28 area. On the other hand, exit screens serve prim arily to deter theft by detecting items that should not be removed from the protected area, such as items not paid for at a shop. Exit screens often involve electronic devices. El ectronic tags and gates at libraries, for example, detect and prevent visitors from unlawfully removing books from the library. Another example can be seen in airports, wh ich provide security sc reening stations for passenger baggage. The ongoing efficiency and vi gilance at such screening stations is believed to have contributed to a reduction in the number of airline hijackings, which decreased from 70% to 15% in the year 1970 (Wilkinson, 1977, 1986; and Landes, 1978). Deflect offenders This technique can be best explained by an example of British soccer stadium managements’ decision to reduce fighting by segregating rival groups of fans in the stadium during soccer matches (Clarke, 1983). Another example is the introduction of clear signage in the Metro st ations e.g. Washington D.C. Metro (La Vigne, 1997) that direct riders to the nearest exits and transf er points. This helps reduce confusion and uncertainty among riders, making them less vul nerable to pick pocketing. Confident, focused riders are perceived to be more diffi cult to pickpocket, and this increase in the perceived effort involved in the crime deflects offenders. Control tools and weapons or controlling facilitators Another way to increase the perceived effo rt involved in a criminal act is through the control of tools and weapons. An interesting example of this effect can be seen in the saloons of the Wild West, which routinely required customers to surrender weapons upon entry due to the risk of drunken gun fight s (Clarke, 1997). A more contemporary example of controlling facilita tors can be seen in the Wa shington Metro subway system, where the deliberate omission of public restroom s, luggage lockers, and excess chairs and

PAGE 42

29 benches discourages potential offenders from lingering in the area and assessing targets (La Vigne, 1997). Increasing Perceived Risks The five techniques below might cont ribute to a particular environment’s appearing to be a high-risk place to commit cr ime, thus dissuading offenders (La Vigne, 1997). The five techniques are: Extend guardianship This type of guardianship can be in the form of cocooning/layering, or neighborhood watching the premises along with other formal guardians. Example of two design options of a stadiu m entrance and ticket control will better explain this technique (Crowe, 1991). The first design option (See Figure 2-6) does not provide transition from undifferentiated parking and informal gatheri ng areas to the entran ce and ticket control functions. Due to this gate, neither the guards nor the ticket boot h personnel can see over the groups of bystanders and hence normal user s sense a lack of control. This design does not facilitate the provisi on of extended guardianship. However, in the second design option (S ee Figure 2-7) the funnel design forces informal gathering farther out into the park ing area. The gathering area becomes more difficult deeper into the parking area becau se of the perceived pedestrian/vehicular conflict. Gate attendants and even the ticke t booth personnel have a greater line of sight control of the parking lot and the pedestri an areas. And thus the normal users sense greater safety due to this extended surveillance.

PAGE 43

30 Figure 2-6 Example of extended guardiansh ip. This is a poor design option. (Sketch, Smita Sahoo, Graduate student, University of Florida) Figure 2-7 Example of extended guardiansh ip. This is a good design option. (Sketch, Smita Sahoo, Graduate student, University of Florida) 1.2.

PAGE 44

31 Assist natural surveillance The goal of surveillance is to both observe offenders and instill the perception that they are indeed being observed. One exampl e of the concept of na tural surveillance can be seen in La Vigne’s study of the D.C Metro (1997), in which she found that open pathways to and from train railways maximize natural surveillance and thus increase the perceived risks of committing crime. Ot her examples include homeowners who trim bushes in front of their homes and banks that light their interiors in order to capitalize upon the natural surveillance pr ovided by the people passing by and going about their everyday life (Clark, 1997). Reduce anonymity This technique derives from the assumption that offenders are more likely to commit a crime when they are anonymous. One ex ample of this is to note a taxi drivers ID when being driven in a taxi. This helps reduce user anonymity, and minimize crime. Utilize place managers ‘Place managers’ (Eck, 1995 and Felson, 1995) such as shop assistants, hotel doormen, park keepers and train conductors are employees who assume some responsibility for monitoring conduct in their work places. In addition to their primary function, these employees, particularly thos e dealing with the public, also provide varying levels of natural surv eillance simply by virtue of th eir position, job, and location. According to Hunter and Jeffery (1992) in their study ‘Preventing convenience store robbery through environmental de sign,’ ten out of fourteen studies concluded that having two clerks on duty, especially at night, wa s an effective robbery prevention measure.

PAGE 45

32 Strengthen formal surveillance Unlike natural surveillance, which is al most incidental and can be provided by anyone, formal surveillance is provided by police, security guards or store detectives. The main function of formal surveillance is to establish a threat significant enough to deter potential offenders. One successful example is the use of CCTV cameras by the security personnel at a univer sity’s parking lot; a practice which subsequently led to a substantial reduction in au to thefts (Poyner, 1991). Reducing Anticipated Rewards Reducing crime rewards can be as simple as removing the crime target or reducing benefits or temptations associated with a pa rticular crime (La Vigne, 1997). This can be achieved by implementing some of the following techniques. Conceal targets As one can imagine, concealed targets do not provide a temptation for offenders. Remove targets Removal of certain elements like car radi os from cars removes the target and thus reduces the theft risks. Similarly, a church in Spain installed a machine that allows people to use their credit cards to make donations. Since the money is not deposited in the church, it reduces thef t risks (Clarke, 1997). Identify property Writing one’s name in a book is a simple form of property marking. As per a study by Laycock (1991), property marking unde rtaken in three communities in Wales combined with extensive medi a publicity nearly halved the number of reported domestic burglaries.

PAGE 46

33 Disrupt markets (Not relevant to this project) Deny benefits Although this strategy is related to reducing tempta tion, benefit denial is a conceptually distinct method of crime prevention. It actually denies offenders the benefits of crime rather than reducing temptation. For exam ple, the attachment of ink tags to highly coveted clothing items denies s hoplifters the benefits of stealing since the tags release ink and stain garments when tamp ered with. This benefit denial effect may actually be even more effective than electronic tags (DiLonardo & Clarke, 1996). Reduce Provocations Reducing unfriendly behavior that causes anger or resentment can also help in creating an environment less conducive to cr ime. Some of the techniques are: Reduce frustration and stress In an already stressful environment, certa in design features, like efficient queuing systems or soothing lighting, may help in reducing stress among the users. Avoid disputes Reducing crowds and creating a controlled environment are some of the conditions that help to avoid disputes. Reduce emotional arousal (Not relevant to this project) Neutralize peer pressure Signs like ‘idiots drink and drive’ or ‘i t’s ok to say no’ are some strategies to neutralize peer pressure.

PAGE 47

34 Discourage imitation (Not relevant to this project) Remove Excuses This is based on the assumption that indi viduals will be less likely to commit a crime if prohibitions are clear or if public humiliation is the probabl e result of a violation (La Vigne, 1997). Set rules All organizations find it necessary to have rules about conduct in their fields of governance. For example, in order to pr oduce consensual crowd management at the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix in 1991 (Veno & Veno, 1993), riders were allowed to operate camp sites for their fe llow motorcyclists and were encouraged to develop rules and procedures for use of the facilities. Th is helped in eliminating fights between the police and the motorcyclists which had marre d the event in the previous years. Post instructions Posting instructions like ‘No Parking’ or ‘Private Property’ helps in maintaining organized and systematic behavior and ev entually helps in removing excuses for committing offenses. Alert conscience These measures serve to stimulate feelings of conscience at the point the offender contemplates committing an offense (Clarke, 1997). They do not attempt to bring lasting changes in generalized attitudes to law breaking. An example of this is the introduction of signs at store entrances that warn, “Shoplif ting is Stealing.” This alerts the conscience of the potential offender and thus contributes to shoplifting prevention.

PAGE 48

35 Assist compliance An example of this technique is the intr oduction of sophisticated crowd control and management at Walt Disney World (Sheari ng & Stenning, 1997). Th e use of pavement marking, signs, physical barriers which makes it difficult to get lost or take a wrong turn, greatly reduces the potential for crime and in civility. This technique helps remove an offender’s excuses for failing to comply with the rules. Control drugs /alcohol This can be achieved by introducing breathaly zers in places like pubs, bars etc. or organized events that are alcohol-free events. Later, the findings section will discuss in detail how the design, management and environmental behavior charac teristics of the Alachua C ounty Courthouse entrance have contributed to the lobby’s safety and appearan ce. This research w ill identify factors in the entrance lobby that are consistent w ith the Matrix of 25 opportunity-reducing techniques and discuss how they contribute to the perceptions of safety and security users form within the lobby. Crime Prevention Through Envi ronmental Design (CPTED) The relationship between crime, fear of crime, its perceptions, and its impact on both quality of life and the built environment is an increasingly pr imary concern to the public, building owners and desi gners. At the intersection of crime prevention, planning, and design is a set of concep ts collectively referred to as Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, or CPTED (Crowe, 1991) . This is a group of modern crime prevention theories which, like Situati onal Crime Prevention, help reduce crime opportunities and contribute to a safe and aes thetically pleasing built environment (La Vigne, 1997). Strategic implementation of CP TED strategies such as site planning,

PAGE 49

36 perimeter definition, sight lines, lighting, etc ., can reduce crime in a more passive, less invasive manner and perhaps enhance the capab ilities of more technologically advanced crime prevention devices. (U.S. Gene ral Administrations Services, 2005). CPTED consists of the following principles: 1. Territoriality — sense of ownership, contro l, or proprietorship over a space which physical design can help create (or discourage). 2. Surveillance — the process of observing or monitoring a site, zone, or territory. The goal of surveillance is to keep intruders under obser vation and make them feel they are being observed. 3. Access control— creates a sense of risk by denying or delaying admittance to a site for “abnormal” users. 4. Activity placement—encourages and enha nces the three principles above and diminishes crime through the types of activities placed in specific spaces. An understanding of CPTED is important, as the findings sec tion will identify how some CPTED principles are applied to the courthouse lobby layout. Furthermore, this study will also discuss how CPTED techniques were used to help prevent and mitigate crime in the courthouse. Conclusion The ideological goal of a courthouse is to instill a sense of trust and faith in the justice system among its users. This is ach ieved, in part, through building design, and the resulting user perceptions. Today’s architects and interior designers must strive to create courthouse lobbies that c onvey a sense of openness and freedom, applying spatial features and symbols that underscore the main themes of the American Judicial System: democracy, fairness, and equality. Many c onsider the incorporation of transparent security strategies in entrance lobbies to be one way of conveying the message of democracy and freedom to users. However, transparent security in the lobby may also project the false impression of absent gua rdianship. Users form perceptions and impressions based on the design and image of courthouses and behave accordingly.

PAGE 50

37 Additionally, end users’ percep tions about personal security and safety may also be affected by the surrounding environment (Nas ar & Fisher, 1993; Gottfredson & Taylor, 1986; Loewen, Steel & Suedfeld, 1993; and S kogan, 1986). According to the Situational Crime Prevention theories— ‘Routine Activity Theory’ and ‘Rational Choice Theory’— offenders both notice and process environmental cues before deciding to commit a crime. The absence of guardianship elements and th e presence of a target may thus encourage offenders to commit crimes (Clarke & Felson, 1 993). Hence, the purpose of the study is to explore how legitimate users perceive bot h the design and their personal safety and security within a courthouse lobby envir onment that makes use of transparent guardianship elements.

PAGE 51

38 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Plan of Research Methodology The present study was conducted at the Alachua County Courthouse—Criminal Justice in downtown Gainesville, Florida. It was carried out in three parts. The first part was to find the design intensions of the Alachua County Courthouse’s architects and interior designers. The designers’ intensi ons and goals included a summary of the original Programming document of the Al achua County Courthouse, U.S. Court Design Guide (USCDG) along with GSA’s (General Services Administration) Design notebook for federal building lobby security and Design Standards for U.S. Court Facilities. The above mentioned documents i.e. the U.S. Court Design Guide (USCDG), GSA’s (General Services Administration) Design notebook for federal building lobby security and Design Standards for U.S. Court Facilities were used by the DLR Group to develop their programming and design solution for th e Alachua County Courthouse (Personal Communication with Todd Orr & Mark Wunderli n, architects at the DLR Group). In the end, the summary was reviewed and appr oved by both Todd Orr & Mark Wunderlin, architects at the DLR Group. Secondly a pre-study was conducted of the research setting that included an analysis of the physical characteristics of the research setting using the Morphological Analysis guide (See Appendix B). And, this was followed by a post-occupancy evaluation of the social characteristics of the research setti ng using a Users Needs Analysis guide (See Appendix C). The pre-st udy was carried out in order to identify

PAGE 52

39 some of the situational crime prevention t echniques incorporated in the lobby design. And thus, it helped in identif ying the reality of the court house security design. Also, these pre-study data provided a foundation for th e subsequent survey of courthouse users. Part three was a survey conducted at the courthouse entrance lobby to determine user perceptions about personal security a nd their opinions about the lobby design and aesthetics. Research Setting The Alachua County Courthouse—Criminal Justice Center was completed Fall 2003. It is a four-storied public building located at 201 E. University Avenue P.O. Box 600, Gainesville, FL 32602-0600 in downt own Gainesville. It is the 8th circuit of the State of Florida’s justice system, and opera tes from 8:15 am to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The building serves a multitude of purposes. While the clerk’s office caters to the public service needs of Alachua County’s residents (re cord keeping, queries and money collection), the courthouse is also the site of numerous legal trials, varying from criminal felonies to civil traffic citations. Currently, it has an area of 118,000 square -feet sited on 6.2 acres, encompassing six blocks in downtown Gaines ville. It was designed by the DLR (Dana Larson Roubal) Group of Orlando, Florida, in association with Rink Associates of Jacksonville, Florida. Michael E. LeBoeuf, AIA of the DLR Group wa s the chief architect. According to Todd Orr & Mark Wunderlin, archit ects at the DLR Group, the courthouse was designed in compliance with the most recent federa l buildings and court house security codes implemented after the Oklahoma City bombi ng, 9/11 terrorist attacks and several other terrorist attacks.

PAGE 53

40 The new 2003 Alachua County Courthouse ha s a contemporary architectural style. While modern in its overall exterior appearance , it also exhibits se veral classical ordering principles. For example how and when axis, rhythm, order, paths and well defined edges are used determines the composition. Like many municipal buildings, these physical features are meant to connote strength a nd reassurance, underscoring the themes of freedom, democracy, openness, law and order. It has a warm neutral color scheme. The color palette and materials selection is esse ntially composed of colors like black, offwhite, grey and beige. The materials used are brushed aluminum, limestone-grey precast and a taupe-colored brick. This color choice is a logical one. According to Miller (1997, p.139), The warm neutrals can make exceptiona lly satisfying backgrounds and are most often the color of choice. Although neutrals can be rich, complex intermixes; most often they are not and are simply preferred because they are safe. The choice of color and materials create a solemn, orderly aesthetic as well as an appropriate look for a government building. The artwork in the reception area of the Alachua County Courthouse, which consists of stained glass murals, di stinguishes it from other lobbies and gives it a singular style. This artwor k echoes the theme of law and order and conveys a message of justice, pr ofessionalism and authority to viewers. Research Participants A courthouse is a hub of public activity. Far more than just a place to settle legal disputes, the courthouse is al so the site of a wide ra nge of record keeping and management tasks. Each day, people use it to conduct various types of businesses, making it a busy place even when trials are not scheduled. Therefore, the courthouse attracts various kinds of user groups. The th ree most distinct are courthouse employees, the public and the defendants. While many peop le are required to be in the courthouse

PAGE 54

41 for court cases (for example, defendants, witn esses, attorneys, judge s, juries and court personnel), there are many others who go ther e to conduct other kinds of business—file deeds, record real estate tr ansactions, change names, regi ster businesses, and obtain a variety of licenses, from marriage to dog tags. The research participants who were surveyed in this study belonged to a convenience sample3 of courthouse users who were presen t at the research setting at the time the researcher was conducting the st udy. This group represents legitimate courthouse users. The Alachua County Courthouse Architects and Designers’ Intentions and Goals Determining the architects’ design goals and intentions for the Alachua County Courthouse involved the review of several doc uments. These included the courthouse’s original programming documents, U.S. C ourt Design Guide (USCDG) along with GSA’s (General Services Administration) Design notebook for Federal Building Lobby Security and Design Standards for U.S. Court Facil ities ( Nov 2000). Also, input from Mark Wunderlin and Todd Orr, senior architects of the DLR Group, as well as the owners’ representative, Ms. Jan Chesser, helped in ascertaining the designers’ intentions. This summary was again reviewed by Mark Wunde rlin, Architect and Todd Orr, Associate Architect their additional comments were incorporated in the final draft of the designers’ intentions and goals. 3 “ Convenience sampling is taking what you can get. A volunteer sample, comprised of people who are willing to participate in a research project, is a convenience sample, and the characteristics and behavior of volunteers may be quite different from those of non volunteers” (Sommer, 2001, p.239).

PAGE 55

42 Pre-Study of the Research Setting—Mor phological Analysis and User Assessment As a public building, the courthouse is accessible to the public for visits, photography, sketching etc. However, this case study was a more formalized endeavor, and required the consent of courthouse author ities. A letter requesting permission to conduct a pre-study—Morphological Analysis, Us er Assessment and a Post Occupancy Evaluation—was sent to the Chief Judge Stan Morris via e-mail (see Appendix A). After receiving approval for conducting the study , the floor plans, elevations and a few courthouse exterior and interi or photographs were obtained from Ms. Jan Chesser, the Court Operations Manager. Also, a letter of permission was obtained from the court administrator Mr. Ted McFetridge for conduc ting the second phase of the study (the survey of the lobby users) (see Appendix F). Morphological Analysis Technique In order to fully analyze the design and structure of the Alachua County courthouse and its resulting effects, this study employe d a morphological analysis technique. This technique, developed by Doll, “organizes the list of features in a design in order to discover or promote its totality and unity, characteristics which are believed to be components of good design” (Doll, 1975, p. 4). “The focus of the-technique is the ‘list of features,’ called morphology since it describe s the logic of the bu ilding form” (Doll, 1975, p. 5). The technique begins by asking genera l questions such as “What are the geometrical and or organizationa l features that are evident in a particular design?”, and then, “Why are these features appropri ate; what parameters support these decisions?”(Doll, 1975, p. 5). These questions can also be translated as, “What is the morphology of a particular design?” and “What is the set of parameters that helped

PAGE 56

43 determine the morphology and what is the struct ure of the set?” resp ectively. The first question aims to address the totality of a design, whereas the second question assumes that compatible or organized parameters will lead to similarly co mpatible or organized features in a design, thus making the ultimat e perception of unity more probable. Furthermore, the morphological analysis technique adopts a systematic model of building designs as a logical structure to which morphologies can be compared in tests for totality. This systematic model is deve loped by asking more detailed questions like, “What are the systems that must be consider ed in all building designs?”; “What are the scales at which these systems can be broken down?” and “Wha t are the important attributes of these systems?” The Morphol ogical Cue list (Refer Appendix B) helps in testing the totality of a give n building. These questions ar e divided into six sections, according to building systems: space, enclosur e, structure, mechanical, circulation and material4. Initially, each system is examined at di fferent scales. Then, each system at each scale is studied according to the parts it contains, the in ternal relationships between its parts, and the external relationships be tween it and other systems. Sometimes one feature answers several questions, and sometime s several features are required to answer a single question (Doll, 1975). Procedure and Instruments The morphologies were repor ted in two ways—written explanation and graphical sketches or diagrams. The analysis was conducted through several site visits, observations, as well as revi ew of AutoCAD layout plans and photographs. A set of basic drawing (floor plans, site plan, elevations) were prepared and used as a template for 4 These morphological categories are taken from pr evious studies done with A. Mackenzie at Cornell University (Doll, 1975).

PAGE 57

44 the analysis. Then various issues were high lighted with some explanatory sketches and diagrams. Photographs (from relevant angles) we re also used to illustrate certain points. This analysis benefited from and was gui ded by Hasell’s (1998) list of Morphological Cues (Refer Appendix B) adapted from Doll’s case studies. It provided a means to assess how the spatial features, organizations, and mate rials of the building relate and work with one another to create a design. The Morphol ogical Cues formed the framework for the analysis, and the subsequent fi ndings were systematically written in formal paragraphs. Other significant definitions and assumptions covered in this paper were derived from F.K Ching’s Architecture Form, Space and Order, (2nd edition). Additionally, Robert Gifford’s Environmental Psychology (3rd edition) assisted in the understanding of various environment and behavior theories, wh ich in turn also contributed to the design analysis of the building. User Assessment Analysis Understanding how users react to and behave within a space is critical for designers and architects. This study focuses on users’ behaviors within the main interior and exterior spaces of the Alac hua County Courthouse building. Applying theories derived from environmental behavior, criminology, a nd design, this study aims to assess how the design of the Alachua County Courthouse affects human behavior. Procedure and Instruments In order to systematically assess user be havior within the c ourthouse, this study applied the “User Assessment Tool: PreDesign Development” developed by Abbott, with Wansor and Hasell (1999) (Refer Appendi x C). This tool was developed to help researchers and designers thoroughly examine th e various environmental-behavior issues relevant to a behavioral analys is. This section addressed th e various user assessment tool

PAGE 58

45 questions in formal paragraphs and the researcher developed her own criteria to determine the issues that were relevant and could be applied to the building. Several methods were used in order to observe as well as record and study the spatial elements of the courthouse and its user behaviors. 1. Observation and behavioral mapping: A ll the observations were carried out on randomly chosen weekdays—March 2005 11, 15, 18, 21, April 2005 6, 11, 20, 21, 22— between 8.30 am to 5pm. For convenient and systematic observati ons and data collect ion, the courthouse floor plan was divided into six different zones (See Figure 3-1). These zones were monitored one or two at a time. Figure 3-1 The diagram illustrates the six di fferent zones of the entrance lobby under observation. (Map prepared by Smita Sa hoo, University of Florida graduate student)

PAGE 59

46 A preliminary behavioral and activity scale was prepared in order to record user behavior and activity as it occu rred within each specified zone (Refer Appendix D). This scale was derived from the behavior scale us ed by Ittelson et al. (1970) to record the behavior of hospice patients (Bechtel, Marans & Michel son, 1987). For example, each chosen day, one or two zones were observed for a time period of one hour. Every 5 minutes different activities were recorded in each of these zones. Special remarks, unusual observations or interesting incidents were noted immediatel y in the description column. Following the observation period, conclusions and comments were briefly noted. These were further developed and ex amined in the Findings and Discussion sections. 2. Archival data collection: Most of th e information, such as frequently asked questions, queries about courthouse premises , way finding, and court house schedule, was obtained from the receptionist’s log book in the entrance lobby of the courthouse. 3. Interviews: A structured, open-ended in terview with the courthouse staff [those who interact with the public ] was conducted. The questionna ire (Refer to Appendix E) was used to gather information about cour thouse employees’ job duties, spatial needs (such as storage requirements, security sc reening station, space requirements for filing documents in the clerks’ office and collecti ng fines, circulation space required by the employees while they are working) and ot her job related activities. Employees interviewed were the receptionist at the in formation desk and the staff in the clerks’ office.

PAGE 60

47 The Perception of Personal Security in the Entrance Lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse The purpose of this part of the study is to understand how courthouse users perceive their personal security in the entrance lobby of the re cently built Alachua County Courthouse at 201 E. University Avenue P.O. Box 600, Gainesville, FL 326020600. As discussed earlier, a trend in courthouse de sign is the application of “transparent” security; that is, security t echnologies that both protect th e building and remain invisible to most visitors. The DLR Group of Orlando, in association with Rink Associates of Jacksonville incorporated these transparen t security measures into Gainesville’s courthouse design. Some believe these stra tegies make a building seem friendlier: “Transparent security, not visible to the publ ic eye strives to maintain the philosophy of openness and friendliness particul arly critical to public sector structures” (Weisberg, 2004, p.1.8). However, currently, there is no empirical evidence that determines how courthouse users perceive personal safety within these “transparently secure” courthouses, and whether or not they feel safe in the ab sence of any obvious security measures. This study tested current crime pr evention theories about security design in public buildings by documenting users’ res ponses to the Alachua County Courthouse lobby. Research Participants of the Survey The research participants for this study we re selected from a convenience sample of the courthouse entrance lobby user s; those present in the lobby at the time the survey was conducted. The researcher surveyed about 100 users present in th e lobby during normal hours of operation, from 6th June 2005 to 16th June 2005.

PAGE 61

48 To summarize, it can be said that the convenience sample represented a group of users in which a majority (64%) had visite d the courthouse more than once and were familiar with the research setting. The majo rity of the sample was black Americans, males and who are above 18 years with at least a 12th grade (Refer Appendix Q). Most of these users i.e. about 54% were accompa nying either their family or friends. Procedure University of Florida Review Board (U FIRB) reviewed the survey and proposal and gave permission to conduct the study (R efer Appendix G). Potential research participants were asked to comment on thei r perceptions of pers onal security in the entrance lobby of the new courthouse. Each research participant wa s asked to read and sign (upon agreement) an informed consent document (Refer Appendix H). The signed form was given to the research participant to keep, and a 2nd signed copy was kept by the researcher until the study’s conclusion. In case of further questions about the study, the participants could contact the addr esses mentioned on this form. A face-to-face semi-structured protocol with both openand closed-ended questions was administered to research pa rticipants. Each participant was asked to verbally respond to the questi ons (See Appendix I). The researcher recorded responses directly on the questionnaire. This entire process took an aver age of 12 minutes to finish. To avoid confusion among the participants regarding the differen t areas/zones of the lobby, the researcher used a zoning map and a photo chart comprised of photographs of the six different zones of he lobby (See Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2).

PAGE 62

49 Figure 3-2 Photo chartshowing the views of the six different zones of the entrance lobby. (Photograph A (n.d.). Obtained February, 2005, from the Alachua County Courthouse, Gainesville, Flor ida & Photograph B, C &E taken by Smita Sahoo, University of Fl orida graduate student) Instruments The preliminary draft of the survey instru ment was developed with the help of Dr. Richard C. Hollinger, Professor at the Department of Criminol ogy, University of Florida. This questionnaire was further reviewed by va rious consultants and experts at different stages of development. Mr. Timothy Crowe, world’s renowned CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) cons ultant, provided valuab le suggestions and comments at various points during the quest ionnaire’s developmen t. Also, several Outside Entry Plaza Reception Area Waiting Area Elevator Lobby Rest Rooms

PAGE 63

50 architects and specialists in judicial a nd civic architecture pr ovided opinions and suggestions, like Mr. Donald J. Dwore, FAIA , Principle of DMJM Spillis Candela, Coral Gables, Mr. Randy Atlas, Ph.D., AIA, CPP, Architect and Crim inologist, Mr. Mark Wunderlin, Architect and Mr . Todd Orr, Associate Arch itect of DLR (Dana Larson Roubal) Group. Also, many courthouse empl oyees contributed to the study, including Mr. Ted McFetridge, Ms. Barbara Dawicke and Ms. Jan Chesser, who helped review the questionnaire and provide commen ts for further improvement. To measure individual perceptions of s ecurity, this study employed a questionnaire (See Appendix I) that contained 14 openand closed-ended questions. Another questionnaire that was developed by the NC SC (National Center of State Courts) provided certain guidelines for developing th e survey instrument for this study. The NCSC (National Center of State Courts, January 2005) que stionnaire on perceptions of lobby safety was originally developed as a part of the trial courts performance standards and systems. The objective of the study ques tionnaire was to measure the key concepts that were used by the designers to accomplish a design that balanced security and aesthetics. Some of the variables/concepts that this questi onnaire attempted to measure were personal security, aesthetics openness, user friendline ss, inviting, comfortable and color. The table 3-1 below discusses briefly the various variab les that were included in the questionnaire and the ways that they were measured.

PAGE 64

51 Table 3-1 Description of key concepts used in the questionnaire (Refer to APPENDIX J) No. KEY CONCEPTS QUESTIONS / ITEMS #’S (Refer APPENDIX J) I SECURITY Perception of Personal Security Q2a, Q2b, Q2c, Q2d, Q2e & Q2f (Perception of personal security in Zones A, B,C,D,E &F) General Fear Factor Q3 & Q4 Opinion about Courthouse Security Q5 & Q6 Way finding Q9 & Q10 II AESTHETICS Open-Cluttered Q8a Friendly-Unfriendly Q8b Uninviting-Inviting Q8c Comfortable-Uncomfortable Q8d Dull-Colorful Q8e Unsafe-Safe Q8f III DEMOGRAPHICS Number of visits/ Familiarity with the research setting Q1 & Q7 Purpose of visit Q11 Age Q12 Gender Q13 Education Q14 Race Personally noted by the researcher An inter-item reliability test was carried out item wise to check the reliability of the instrument and also to check internal consistency (i.e. how well a scale of items clusters around a particular constr uct). With the Cronbach’s alpha ( ) = 0.945, the instrument was found to have high inte r-item consistency and reliability. Summary The Morphological Analysis and the User Assessment helped to develop a thorough understanding of the re lationship between the resear ch setting environment and the users’ behaviors. Also, they were used to identify some of the factors in the entrance lobby environment that might be consiste nt with some of the opportunity-reducing

PAGE 65

52 situational crime prevention techniques (See Table 2-1). The prestudy data provided a foundation for the subsequent survey of cour thouse users. Combined together, the prestudy and the survey results helped in know ing the reality and the perception of the courthouse entrance lobby design. The intensio ns of the architects and designers will be derived from the summary of various docum ents like the programming document of the courthouse, GSA’s (General Services Administration) Design notebook for Federal Building Lobby Security and Design Standards for U.S. Court Faci lities ( Nov, 2000). Finally, all the findings were compared to answer the hypothesis of this study.

PAGE 66

53 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS CONFIDENTIAL Contact the author or the committee members for further information. Contact: Chair Dr. M. Jo Hasell (hasell@ufl.edu) Cochair Dr. R.H Schneider (rschnei@ufl.edu) Smita Sahoo (smita679@gmail.com)

PAGE 67

54 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The design of a courthouse is the underl ying scheme that governs its function. The image is how that scheme is perceived and the behavior it provokes in the people that use the courthouse. Don Hardenbergh, 1991 Court Works As discussed earlier, it is important that de signers consider safety and symbolism as well as the themes of democracy, freedom, ju stice and friendliness to the public when designing courthouse interiors. Entrance lobbies are particular ly important in that they influence visitors’ first impressions of an organization and must therefore convey any applicable objectives or themes (St eel, 1973; Stimpson, 1988; Ornstein, 1992and Park, 2005). And in order to effec tively convey these objectives to end users, architects and interior designers must have a comprehensiv e understanding of effective entrance lobby design. Recent terrorist incidents, in cluding the 9/11 attacks, have contributed to a shift in courthouse design. Architects and designers have begun to place an increased emphasis on safety, balancing security wi th aesthetics. However, this goal must be balanced with another design objective: the presentation a positi ve and friendly first impression to users. Achieving both of these goals can be challe nging, since security devices and technologies can be imposing to the public, and counter eff ective in terms of the creation of a friendly, inviting atmosphere. So, in orde r to mediate these two seemi ngly antithetical objectives designers have begun to incorporating the concept of ‘Transparent Security’ into courthouse design. Transparent security attempts to create a safe, secure environment

PAGE 68

55 through visually discreet and minimally-invas ive security strategies. These may consist of hidden security cameras, minimal visible security guards, etc. Although many believe that the concept of transparent security provi des an effective way to balance security and aesthetics, this study’s findings are c ounter indicative to that belief. One method of implementing transparent secu rity is to build security into the design of the courthouse itself. This theory called situational crime prevention – currently consists of differe nt sub-theories that can be translated into 25 specific techniques to reduce the opportunity for crime. In planning the Alachua County Courthouse, the architects and designers implemented several of these techniques. This study found that 60% of the si tuational crime prevention opp ortunity-reducing techniques had been implemented in the courthouse l obby. The study found that the other primary design intent – creating a frie ndly, attractive interior – was also achieved, as most users found the courthouse aesthetics both appropriate and pleasi ng. The circulation and wayfinding were excellent. Hence, we can c onclude that the reality of the courthouse’s design is that it contains a well-integrated, mindfully designed security system. However, despite this, user perception of personal s ecurity in the courthouse was not entirely positive. This study’s findings demons trate a normal and expected sample of courthouse users as its research participants. Moreover, the respondents’ genera l fear factor was low in that they were not, in general, fearfu l of crime. The study determined this via a comparison of their relative perceptions of fearfulness at other locations in the community with respect to the courthouse. Bu t in spite of this, us ers perceived the six zones of the entrance lo bby with varying levels of fearfulness. The study’s data revealed

PAGE 69

56 that areas of the courthouse lobby with visi ble security (i.e. less transparent) were correlated with higher feelings of security amongst users. Also, when asked directly about courthouse security in questions 5 a nd 6, users indicated a preference for visible security. The study’s findings seem to support the hypot hesis that users perceived areas of the Alachua County Courthouse co ntaining transparent security as less safe and secure than areas containing conventional visible secu rity. Because of this, the study contends that the original design intent ion of creating an environment that was safe and secure in both perception and reality was not achieve d. We can conclude then, that although the designers successfully created an aesthetically pleasing design, users do not perceive all the zones of the lobby as safe and secure. Mo reover, this tends to be related to the presence (or absence) of visible security m easures, such as guardianship, CCTV, barriers, (and the other physical security is sues mentioned previously). In a broader sense, every da y life is a similar balancing act in so far as we often trade one thing for another, with some costs involved. We are, for instance, willing to put up with airport baggage, persona l searches and time delays in order to contribute to transportation security. But mo st of us understand the tradeoffs they are made explicit in warnings and published information. In the case of this courthouse, the attempt was to provide an aesthetically pleas ing experience through transparen t security, but the tradeoff may be— as our data showed — that people si mply don’t feel as secure in such built environments. The question, then, is whether th e tradeoff is in fact worth it. This also involves issues of social justice and equ ity since the most frequent users of the Courthouse tend to be those w ho are less educated and less af fluent and they are probably

PAGE 70

57 also the least likely to understand this tradeoff. Is it worth investing a huge amount in designs with the sole result being the creation of a certain image for an institution? Should designers have the power (without any notice to the pub lic) to decide what aspect of design should be given more priority? Is it worthwhile? How do we tell people that we’re trading their feelings of security for aesth etics? Or, is it possibl e to achieve both at the same time? Recommendations for Future Research Although the results of this study are pr omising in its discovery of hypothesissupporting evidence, the need fo r future research remains. First, this study was based on interviews w ith just 100 research participants from a convenience sample; future research should consider a higher number of research participants from scientific random samples. Second, this research was conducted in just one courthouse entrance lobby designed with transparent security. Future research should be conducted in two similarly sized entrance lobbies; one desi gned with transparent security and another without. Even though this study found significant re sults indicating users felt more secure with visible security than transparent security, it would be interesting to measure users’ perceptions of personal security in two differe nt research settings. Howeve r, care should be taken while selecting these two research settings in order to ensure that the research participants are familiar with both settings. This way, user perceptions about personal security can be compared. This study had an advantage in th at the same set of research participants responded to perceptions of personal security in the six different zones; hence their responses could be compared to obtain meaningful results.

PAGE 71

58 Third, in addition to paired sample t-te sts, an ANOVA comparison of mean test should be conducted to compare us er perceptions since results of the paired sample t-tests of more than 2 pairs are accompanied by type 1 error. These results are statistically significant at = 0.05 and not = 0.01, which means that ther e might be 5% error in the results. However, on the other hand, some statisticians argue that an ANOVA comparison of means also conducts a series of t-tests and is also likely to face the similar problem of type-1 error. Due to constraints of time a nd resources, my results were analyzed using the paired sample t-test. Recommendations for Architects, Designers and Courthouse Facility Planners My recommendations cannot be generalized for all the entrance lobbies of all courthouses; however courthouse designers can definitely benefit from these recommendations and design safe r, more effective solutions in future projects. These design recommendations can certainly be adapte d to entrance lobbies in other building types such as airports, banks, business cente rs, World Trade Center s or any environment requiring a balance between aesthetics, image and security. There is no doubt that a company’s image is born at the entrance and reception area and determined in part by the design of and obj ects within that area. Several studies on corporate design (Yee & Gustafson, 1983; Ornstein, 1992; Gifford, 1997; Hatch & Schultz, 1997; Gifford, 2002 and Park, 2005) have supported this idea. The same is true for courthouses. Courthouse entrance lobbies create significant, la sting first impressions on users and should be designed accordingly. But equally important is the concept of security, both in perception and reality. This is especially significant in buildings like courthouses, governmental buildi ngs or airports where security equipment or personnel should be visible to only the extent to which they make the users feel protected. Users

PAGE 72

59 should not feel intimidated, overly monitore d, or as though they might be harassed or troubled. Security stations should be located where th ey are clearly visible to users, not in a corner or niche. For example, some of us ers in this study commented that, “As I enter I see no guards, may be they should have so me guards at the entrance. The guards are sitting in this niche like area; th ey are not visible as you enter.” Henceforth, security should be readily visible to anyone ente ring the lobby, as it symbolizes protection of the pubic. Secu rity guards can serve the dual purpose of preventing crime and making users feel relaxe d by greeting and welcoming all those who visit the courthouse. The courthouse lobby layout should avoid niches, awkward corn er spaces “hot spots” or “blind spots”. ‘Hot spots’ are places vulnerable to crime while ‘blinds spots’ are areas with limited visibility. The space should also have good visibility and clear sightlines. Recommendations for Redesigning the Entrance Lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse If I were asked to redesign the entran ce lobby, as per my observations, conclusions and understandings, the following would be my recommendation: Figure 5-1 shows the original lobby layout a nd the three different zones – the plaza, free zone and the secure lobby. In the proposed redesign of the lobby layout (Figure 5-2), the secure lobby area is increased in order to allot more space for people waiting for their or their family members’, friends’ trials. In any case, the free zone is primarily used for queuing purposes before security screening or in cases when users have queries for the receptionist. Occasionally, before screening so me people do wait in this area. However,

PAGE 73

60 these activities don’t last for more th an 10-15minutes. Hence, the design recommendation of increasing the secure lobby area is a logical one. Furthermore, furniture for seating is added in this extended area. Secondly, the revised placement of the info rmation desk and the screening station enables clear and immediate visibility of th e screening station to all those entering the lobby (See Figures 5-3). Also, th e guards at the front security station have clear view of the front entry plaza. The third modification is the introduction of a security desk near the waiting area, elevator lobby and the staircase unit. This strategy will make the security visible and users feel that the security guards are present to protect them. Fourthly, the elevator lobby and staircase unit are made open without enclosure and a second security desk is placed in close proxi mity. Alternatively, th e staircase enclosure can be made of glass blocks or other tran sparent materials that will facilitate good visibility and maintain transparency.

PAGE 74

61 Figure 5-1 Original Alachua County Courthouse entrance lobby layout demonstrating the three zone, the plaza, the free zone and the secure lobby (Diagram by Smita Sahoo, University of Florida graduate student) PLAZA SECURE LOBBY FREE ZONE Security Screening Station that is not visible from the entry point

PAGE 75

62 Figure 5-2 Schematic diagram of a proposed redesign of the Alachua County Courthouse e entrance lobby layout (Diagram by Sm ita Sahoo, University of Florida graduate student) PLAZA FREE ZONE Security Screening Station that is visible from the entry point SECURE LOBBY

PAGE 76

63 Figure 5-3 Redesigned Alachua County Courthouse entrance lobby layout (Sketch by Smita Sahoo, University of Florida graduate student) 1 2 3 4

PAGE 77

64 Conclusion In conclusion, architects a nd interior designers should re member that learning is a never-ending process and should continue even after a building is completed. Architects and interior designers should actively involve themselves in the post-mortem evaluation of their designs. This participation will not only help improve and inform future projects, but also allow a more comprehensive understanding of their own designs. This study provided evidence to support th e research hypothesis that transparent security may make some users feel less secure and less safe than conventional, or ‘visible’, security measures such as phys ical barriers, visible cameras [CCTVs], or security guards. It also c oncluded that, like offenders, le gitimate users make judgments about personal security and vulnerability ba sed on the environmenta l cues within their surroundings. This pilot study helped to f ill a knowledge gap by providing evidence about the effects transparent security design strategies ha ve on end users’ cognitive judgments, while also contributing to the body of crime prevention literature as a whole. The courthouse is significant in both its ar chitectural grandeur and symbolic presence. Today’s architects and designers must continue to refine their ability to create courthouses that are at once aesthetically pleasing and secure in both perception and reality. This study, in its asser tion that transparent security may not necessarily contribute to this goal, will thus contribute to imp roved design strategies, security, and user enjoyment in both courthouses and other public buildings alike.

PAGE 78

65 APPENDIX A LETTER TO CHIEF JUDGE STAN MORRIS Date: Hon. Stan R. Morris Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit 201 East University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Dear Judge Morris, I would like to introduce you to one of my top graduate students, Ms. Smita Sahoo, an architect from Mumbai, India w ho is currently purs uing her Masters in Interior Design at the University of Florida. At present, sh e is working on her master’s degree thesis proposal, “The Perception of Personal Security in the Entrance Lobby of a Courthouse.” In her study, she wants to focus on the new Alachua County Courthouse in downtown Gainesville, Florida. Since you were the driving force behind the design of the new courthouse, I am requesting that you meet with this student and consider her requests. In short, Ms. Sahoo would like access to the following information: 1. Providing my graduate student with the layout plans and elevations of the new Alachua County Courthouse in downtown Gainesville. 2. Allowing her to take photographs of the exterior of the bu ilding and also the interior public lobby areas. The purpose of her study is an attempt to understand how the new trends [i.e. antiterrorism strategies and measures incorporated in the design, especially after the bombing of Oklahoma City, 9/11 terrorist s attacks and other notable terro rist attack incidents] in courthouse design affect the perception of pe rsonal security among the end users. This study will also test whether or not the designers’ intentions were adequately conveyed to end users. The significance of this study is the understa nding of complex rela tionships between the courthouse’s built environment and its users’ perceptions of personal security. The findings will help designers to be able to balance security and aes thetics and, also to create a safe and secure built environment. These findings will significantly contribute to the crime prevention literature by testing how th e security and antiterrorism strategies are perceived by innocent users and not just by offenders.

PAGE 79

66 Last semester, Fall of 2004, she prepared a pr eliminary thesis proposal with the help of her Committee Chair Dr. M. Jo Hasell and Co-Chair Prof. Richard Schneider. This spring 2005 semester, I will be giving her my guidance in developing the research methodology. Her goals for this semester are to further develop the proposal, and to obtain permission for the study from Universi ty of Florida Institutional Review board (UFIRB). Also, she intends to study the Alachua C ounty Courthouse building as a part of her Theory of Interior Design class assignme nt. The IND 5638 Theory of Interior Design course is a graduate course offered by the department of Interi or design, College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida. Dr. Meg Portillo, Chair of Department of Interior Desi gn is teaching the course. I very much appreciate your serious consider ation of this request. Ms. Sahoo and I both look forward to working with you on th is mutually beneficial project. Cordially, Richard C. Hollinger, Ph.D. Professor

PAGE 80

67 APPENDIX B MORPHOLOGICAL CUES FOR UNDERSTANDING BUILDINGS Adapted by Dr. Mary Jo Hasell (Unpublished paper, 1998) I. What are the spatial features of the buildi ng and its site? A. What are the spatial features of the site? 1. What are the individual spaces like with re gard to their size, shape, and edge clarity? 2. What are the ordering principles used to make relationships between the spaces of the site and the buildings? (Which are connected or separated? What is the basic geometry of their distribution?) 3. What are the formal characteristics that help to define the spaces in the site? 4. How is the spatial organization of the site related to other aspects of the building, such as internal spaces, enclosure features, stru ctural features, etc.? (Is it dominant or subordinate reinforcing or contradictory?) B. How is the building zoned? 1. What are the zones (public/private, formal/informal, commercial/residential, staff/residents) and how are they described (sized, shape, size, etc)? 2. How are the zones organized? 3. How is the organization of zones related to other aspects of the building? (Are they dominant, subordinate, equal, unrelated?) C. What are the spatial features of the individual spaces within zones? 1. How can individual spaces be descri bed (activity, shape, size, etc)? 2. What formal characteristics help define th e spatial characteristics of the areas within the building? 3. How are ordering principles used to relate the spaces and zones (connected, separated) and what patterns do these relationships fo llow (geometrical, hierarchical, formal )? 4. How is the organization of spaces relate d to other aspects of the building/site (dominant, subordinate, equal, unrelated)? II. What are the enclosure featur es of the building and its site? A. What enclosure features are used on the site? 1. What is the enclosure pieces used on the si te (the building itself, other construction, planting, topography?) 2. What are the relationships between these pieces? (Do they act alone as landmarks? Do they repeat a shape or fall on a grid? Do they work together to enclose spaces?) 3. How is enclosure of the site related to ot her aspects of the build ing/site itself, other construction, planting, and topography? B. What are the exterior enclosur e features of the building/site? 1. What kinds of enclosure are used on the building (opaque/transparent, explicit/implicit)? 2. What proportions systems are used? 3. Are ordering principles used to arrange si zes and shapes of the enclosures and their components parts?

PAGE 81

68 4. What are the relationships between the pieces (special joints, geometrical systems, distribution of transparent and/ or window surfaces, massing of the building? 5. How is the enclosure of the bu ilding related to other features? C. What are the enclosure features inside the building? 1. What kinds of enclosure are used inside the building (implicit/explicit, what sizes and shapes, what materials)? 2. How are different kinds of enclosure or di fferent enclosure pieces related inside the building (joints, geometrical systems?) 3. How is enclosure within the bu ilding related to other features? III. What are the structural features of the building? A. Are there any special structur al features used on the site (re taining walls, bridges, etc.) and how are they related to each other and to the building? B. What are the structural features used on or the building? 1. What are the parts of the structural syst em (columns, piers, bearing walls, beams, slabs?) 2. How are the structural parts organized in th e building (geometrical patterns, scales, or modular patterns, special joints?) 3. What are the structural proportions of the building? 4. How are the structural features relate d to other features of the building? IV. What are the energy c onserving, day-lighting and mechanical features of the building? A. What are the special energy conserving a nd mechanical features used on the site (orientation of building to sun, operable windows and porches, solar devices, swimming pools, windmills) and how are they rela ted to each other and to the building? B. What are the energy conserving and daylighting features used on or within the building? 1. What are the skylight and window patterns, roof overhangs, entr ance covers, etc. and what are their proportions, scale, and shapes? 2. How do the openings on various facades use daylight to advantage, conserve energy and relate to the building as a whole? C. What illumination and mechanical features are used in the building? 1. What are the different type s of illumination and mechanic al systems (distribution of energy, heat, water, removal of waste) a nd what are their parts (sizes, shapes)? 2. How are day lighting, illumination and mechani cal systems related to other features of the building? (Do they contri bute to the description of space or enclosure? Do they determine spatial organization and enhance wa y finding? Do they di rect attention to important design feature?) V. What are the circulation features of the building? A. What kinds of circulation are on the site (people, animals, vehicles) and how do they relate to other features of the building? 1. What are the entrances features to the site? 2. What kinds of path configur ations are there in the site? 3. How is the building approached? B. What are the entrance features of the building? 1. How is the entrance defined? 2. What type of entrances exists within the building?

PAGE 82

69 C. What are the path features of the building? 1. How are the paths configur ed within the building? 2. What are the path-space relationships within the building? D. What are the forms of the circulation spaces? 1. How are these kinds of circulation spaces related (geometrical patterns, access hierarchies, vertical access?) 2. How are the circulation spaces related to other features of the building? VI. What are the material, finish, color, text ure and furnishing features of the building and its rooms? A. What materials are used on the site (l andscaping, platforms, stone, concrete, brick, living surfaces, etc?) 1. How are they related to other features of the building (proportion, scale, color texture)? B. What finish materials, architectural deta ils, and design features are used on the outside surfaces of the building? 1. What are their formal characteristics? 2. Are they arranged according to an ordering principle? 3. How do these relate to each other and to the interior features of the building? 4. What colors and textures are used and how do they to relate to the interior features of the building? C. What kind of finishes, mate rials, and furnishings were used in the building’s public and private spaces? 1. What are their formal characteristics? 2. Are they arranged acco rding to an ordering principle? 3. How do these related to each other as well as to the building and site? D. What materials, colors and textures are used on the furnishings? 1. What are their formal characteristics? 2. Are they arranged acco rding to an ordering principle? 3. How do these related to each other as well as to the building and site?

PAGE 83

70 APPENDIX C ASSESSMENT TOOL: PRE-DESIGN DEVELOPMENT BY PHILLIP ABBOTT WITH MICHELLE WA NSOR AND DR. MARY JO HASELL (1999) INTRODUCTION & ORGANIZATION This assessment tool systemat ically addresses the need s of many users in public spaces and then the individual needs of one or more users in specific spaces. The assessment tool is intended for pre-design understa nding and is in a format based on needs of the users. The user is defined as the actual user(s) of the built environment and not a sponsor client. Methodically answer all of the following questions to determine the critical needs and requirements for your design. Finally, include the metaphor that completes the composition for a concept statement. 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT 2. DEFINE THE BUILDING TYPE (Refer to Morphological Cues for understanding buildings ) 3. DEFINE THE USERS Demographic characteristics Number of occupants Status of occupants (Hierarchy in organization, owner of residence, etc.) Age (Is age a significant constraint for design development?) Gender

PAGE 84

71 Culture/Ethnicity Shared values and belief systems What is the cultural make -up of user population? Common values Which common values are significant? Is value’s understanding an important factor (e.g. religious facility)? Symbolic form Is comfort from psycholog ical symbols significant? Health: physical / mental competence Self-supporting potential? Needs personal physi cal assistance? Interceptive guidance needed? Physical signs? Information desk or kiosk support? 4. ANALYZE THE PHYSIOLOGICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS Ergonomic considerations Body support and equipment Age group needs (children, elderly) Cultural specificity (sleeping, eating, gathering) Activity requirements Flexibility / adaptability Safety Environmental challenge vs. environmental comfort Is comfort the primary concern for all the senses? Accessibility Physical mobility impairment What are the types of impairment? What accommodation is required? Visual impairment Is this a significant consideration in this population? Hearing impairment Is this a significant consideration in this population? Ambient considerations Cognitive stimulation Sensory stimulation (visual, tactile, aroma, haptic, etc.) Comfort vs. style Color perception Aging effect

PAGE 85

72 What are charges in perception? Cultural specificity What is significance of hue, chroma, and value? Illumination needs Task (direct) requirements What are the requirements tasks? What are the environmental suppor t elements (e.g. desk surface color/texture, glare on computer screen?) How significant is flexibility? Indirect requirements Is there a specific mood requirement? Is there a general light ing level requirement? Psychological needs How significant is this potential for well being, way finding, etc.? Where would this occur (landmark, nodes, etc.)? Acoustical needs/ tolerance What communication devices are ne eded (phone, intercom, etc.)? Spatial relationships Where are the structural, materials and finish requirements for privacy? Structural requirements What are the structural, material an d finish requirements for privacy? Climate control needs Significance for sense of overall comfort? Significance for sense of overall well being? 5. HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE CO NSIDERATIONS – 3D PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Functional centrality and adjacency needs How significant is convenience of use and where? What are the emergency requireme nt for fire, safety, and medical intervention? Way finding requirements Is there a need for landmarks, pat hs, nodes, districts, and regions? Is there a need for signage? Is there a need to use ambient c onditions to enhance direction? Is there a need to mark space through structure and/or flexible elements? Privacy considerations

PAGE 86

73 Sociopetal Is there a need for enclosed spaces that foster intimate behavior and close relationships? Is this type of space necessa ry for a sense of security? How significant is a perceived human scale? Sociofugal Is there a need for open public sp aces that discourage intimate behavior? Doe this space allow for refuge and prospect to interesting vistas? Information access (e.g. is there a yo u-are-here map, brochures, etc.?) Does perceived manning seem appropriate? How significant is a perceived human scale? Personal Space To what extent is this necessary? Is culture/ethnicity a factor? Are values and beliefs a factor? Territorial demarcation Protection needs From view/viewing (prospect & refuge) Awareness of the weather? Control perception Where is there a need for perceived control (spatial flexibility, temperature settings, light switches, etc.)? Psychological need What is the perceived need for te rritorial boundaries (personalizing of office workspace, etc.)? Public / private Need for legibility to identify publ ic, semi-public, and private spaces? Defensible space Formal Need for surveillance (security camera, policeman, metal detectors, etc.)? Need for legible and safe way finding? Need for security lighting? Need for symbolic perception (fence, change of flooring)? Informal Need for observation of public ways by the occupants? Need to create a sense of ownership /partnership in semi-public space? Need to create a sense of owne rship/partnership to encourage maintenance of personal spaces (loca tion of cleaning equipment, hose to water flowers, etc.)?

PAGE 87

74 Community considerations Homogeneity of population perceptions What is homogeneous nature of th e user population (age, culture, gender, etc.)? What is the effect on potential interactions? Heterogeneity support potential Does the environment need to suppo rt a variety of interests (mixed gender, etc.)? Concept(s) about a sense of “place” Should all users come to an agreem ent about the style or feeling appropriate for the space? Collective expression needs Is the symbolic expression of the group important? Extended relationship considerations Is there a need for mutual support relationships between users? What are characteristics of the en vironment that can afford this? What is the user’s relations hip to the support community? 6. BELONGING AND SELF ESTEEM NEEDS (the individual user) Cultural considerations Style (architectural & personal) reference What is the existing context? Should it be utilized in est ablishing the design direction? Social considerations Organizational requirements Formal/ informal requirements based on bureaucratic control How significant is it for the user(s) to be aware of the hierarchy of spatial relationships in the organi zation (e.g. boss has a corner window with a view, secretary has no window)? Decision control needs Should user have control of the imme diate environmental context and to what degree (temperature control, lighting, etc.)? Symbolic aesthetic reaction Does status of the user re quire symbolic consideration?

PAGE 88

75 Communal / descriptive potential Common goals / ideals Do apparent common interests simpli fy aspects of environment? Vernacular history Should local vernacular forms be used as a reference? Interaction considerations Sociopetal Interaction distance needs Is there a relationship between users? Is there potential for user discussion / interaction? Need for mutual aid Is there a need for physica l support from other users? What is psychological support pot ential from other users? Propinquity needs / attitude How significant is sense of personal physical and emotional “security”? Sociofugal Status affect Does social-economic status of users suggest separation? Organizational security considerations Psychological perception need How significant is security of information? How significant is privacy for communication? Life style considerations Homogeneity What is significance to built environment? Stratification What are the significant relationship needs? 7. SELF ACTUALIZATION / INDIVIDUAL NEEDS (the individual user) Competence of individual user Intellectual needs Challenging and / or comfortable Where are intellectually c hallenging area important? Where are comfortable areas important? Are perception / reality appropriate?

PAGE 89

76 Motivational needs Image perception Is image sequence a significant conc ern (moving from one node to the next)? Rewards potential Is this (e.g. special view) a signifi cant factor in the environment? Can 3D environmental sequence foster? Can the circulation sequence foster (views)? Cost relationship Monetary Is it important for the perceived value to be greater than the cost/ Psychological Is the level of ‘display’ appropriate? Personality characteristics Extrovert / Introvert Should environment relate to this uni que need by providing both public and private places for people to gather? Ego support How significant is ego support to the environment? Should physical environment support? Is the level of display appropriate? (E.g. objects, artwork, styles send the appropriate message) Attitude characteristics Knowledge and experience What is basis of attitude? How resistant to change is the user? Appropriate spatial, ergonomic, am bient choices needed to relate certain experiences of user to environment? Affective (like, dislike) What subjective feelings toward th e building, room and furniture forms need to be considered? Predisposition How will these affect environment? Should environment potential affect a change? Space control considerations Identifying (belonging) Local relationships Are routine relationships a significant factor? Cosmopolitan relationships Are non-routine relationship s a significant factor?

PAGE 90

77 Stimulation connections External Do user’s external images affe ct his sense of well being? Internal Is internal contemplatio n a normal characteristic? Security needs Censuring Is this a significant requirement? Should environment afford? Should a perception of a s ecure environment exist? Relationship to self confidence Should the user’s self confidence be supported by a sense of security? Privacy needs What are the fam ily/fictive kin suppo rt requirements? Where can these occur? Is there a need for intimate levels of privacy? Solitude Is this a necessary consideration? Should the environment afford this? Where do areas of solitude fit in the environment? Are places of contemplation important? Intimacy Is family / fictive kin support interaction important to the user? Where are areas of support? Anonymity Is this a significant need? Should some areas allow physical and psychological separation? Personalization potential Accumulation of possessions Flexibility potential in environment need Does user desire movable seating? Does user desire environment cont rol (lighting, acous tics, and climate control)? Is view adjustment a significant factor?

PAGE 91

78 APPENDIX D SCALE FOR RECORDING BEHAVIOR A ND ACTIVITIES (DEVELOPED BY SMITA SAHOO, UNI VERSITY OF FLORIDA GRADUATE STUDENT)

PAGE 92

79 APPENDIX E USER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (DEVELOPED BY SMITA SAHOO, UNI VERSITY OF FLORIDA GRADUATE STUDENT) Q1. What is your job title? Q2. What are your specific tasks? Q3. What are your office hours? Q4. When you are most busy? Q5. Where do you spend your break time? Q6. What restroom do you use? Q7. Who are you attending to mostly ? (Public, other staff members) Q8. What questions are you mostly asked? Q9. When working with/for ot hers is privacy required? Q10. Do you have an assistant? Q11. If so, what tasks does this assistant do for you? Q12. Do you shift from one place to another often?

PAGE 93

80 APPENDIX F ALACHUA COUNTY COURT HOUSE PERMISSION LETTER

PAGE 94

81 APPENDIX G UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUT IONAL REVIEW BOARD (UFIRB) PERMISSION LETTER

PAGE 95

82 APPENDIX H INFORMED CONSENT FORM University of Florida Department of Interior Design Perception of Personal Security in the Entrance lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse at Gainesville, Florida This research is being conduc ted as a part of a master’s thesis, ‘The perception of personal security in the entrance lobb y of the Alachua County Courthouse at Gainesville.’ The purpose of this study is to assess courthouse users’ perceptions of personal security in the entrance lobby of the Alachua County Courthouse. The findings of this study will help provide design reco mmendations to courthouse architects/interior designers. Also, in future, it will help these designers to develop better design solutions and create safer and more secure environments. It is being conducted by Ms. Smita Sahoo, gradua te student, at the University of Florida’s Department of Interior Design. This study is carried out under the guidance of Dr. M. Jo Hasell and Dr. R.H Schneider. The questionn aire takes about 12 minutes to complete. Your participation is complete ly voluntary and there is no risk, compensation or direct benefits to you for participating in this re search. However, you will be helping to make recommendations for courthouse designers to de velop design solutions and create a safer and secure environment. Should have any questions about this research, please contact Dr. M. Jo Hasell at 352392-0252 ext. 337, Dr. R.H Schneider at 352-392-0433 ext. 430 and Smita Sahoo at smita679@ufl.edu or you may write or email us at th e address provided. To learn more about the rights in the stu dy, please contact the UFIRB of fice, Box 112250, University of Florida, FL 32611-2250: Phone 352-392-0433. Unless you indicate otherwise to us in writing, your responses to the questions will be completely confidential and secured in the researcher’s office: only aggregate answers reported. Your identity will be kept confiden tial to the extent provided by law. You do not have to answer any ques tion that you do not wish to answer and you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time without penalty. Thank you.

PAGE 96

83 University of Florida, Department of Interior Design, PO Box 115702, Gainesville Florida 32611 Telephone 352-392-0205/ Fax 352-4606 Dr. M. Jo Hasell ( hasell@ufl.edu ) Dr. R.H Schneider ( rschnei@ufl.edu ) Smita Sahoo ( smita679@ufl.edu ) Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Fl orida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 3920433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: _____________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigat or: _____________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 97

84 APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE USER S AT THE ALACHUA COUNTY COURTHOUSE ENTRANCE LOBBY Q1. Is this your first visit to the Alachua County Courthouse? a. Yes b. No If, NO, how many times have you be en to the courthouse? ________________________ Q2a. Are you familiar with the ‘outside entr y plaza’? (Show Figure A-1 and Figure A-2) a. Yes b. No What is the likelihood that each of the followi ng crimes will take pl ace in this area? Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not at all Likely No answer 1 A stranger snatching valuables from you 1 2 3 4 2 Someone physically hurting you with / without a weapon 1 2 3 4 3 Someone sexually harassing you 1 2 3 4 4 Someone verbally abusing or threatening you 1 2 3 4 5 Other:________ 1 2 3 4

PAGE 98

85 b. Are you familiar with the ‘reception area ’? (Show Figure A-1 and Figure A-2) a. Yes b. No What is the likelihood that each of the followi ng crimes will take pl ace in this area? Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not at all Likely No answer 1 A stranger snatching valuables from you 1 2 3 4 2 Someone physically hurting you with / without a weapon 1 2 3 4 3 Someone sexually harassing you 1 2 3 4 4 Someone verbally abusing or threatening you 1 2 3 4 5 Other:________ 1 2 3 4

PAGE 99

86 c. Are you familiar with the ‘waiting ar ea’? (Show Figure A-1 and Figure A-2) a. Yes b. No What is the likelihood that each of the followi ng crimes will take pl ace in this area? Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not at all Likely No answer 1 A stranger snatching valuables from you 1 2 3 4 2 Someone physically hurting you with / without a weapon 1 2 3 4 3 Someone sexually harassing you 1 2 3 4 4 Someone verbally abusing or threatening you 1 2 3 4 5 Other:________ 1 2 3 4

PAGE 100

87 d. Are you familiar with the ‘rest room in the entrance lobby’? (Show Figure A-1 and Figure A-2) a. Yes b. No What is the likelihood that each of the followi ng crimes will take pl ace in this area? Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not at all Likely No answer 1 A stranger snatching valuables from you 1 2 3 4 2 Someone physically hurting you with / without a weapon 1 2 3 4 3 Someone sexually harassing you 1 2 3 4 4 Someone verbally abusing or threatening you 1 2 3 4 5 Other:________ 1 2 3 4

PAGE 101

88 e. Are you familiar with the ‘elevator lobby’? (Show Figure A-1 and Figure A-2) a. Yes b. No What is the likelihood that each of the followi ng crimes will take pl ace in this area? Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not at all Likely No answer 1 A stranger snatching valuables from you 1 2 3 4 2 Someone physically hurting you with / without a weapon 1 2 3 4 3 Someone sexually harassing you 1 2 3 4 4 Someone verbally abusing or threatening you 1 2 3 4 5 Other:________ 1 2 3 4

PAGE 102

89 f. Are you familiar with the ‘enclosed stai rwell’? (Show Figure A-1 and Figure A-2) a. Yes b. No What is the likelihood that each of the followi ng crimes will take pl ace in this area? Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not at all Likely No answer 1 A stranger snatching valuables from you 1 2 3 4 2 Someone physically hurting you with / without a weapon 1 2 3 4 3 Someone sexually harassing you 1 2 3 4 4 Someone verbally abusing or threatening you 1 2 3 4 5 Other:______________ 1 2 3 4 Q3. In general, how fearful are you of the above mentioned crimes happening to you in places other than the Alachua County Courthouse? Very Fearful Somewhat Fearful Not at all Fearful No answer Q4. For comparison purposes, can you tell me how safe do you feel in the ‘Alachua County Courthouse’ as compared to the ‘Oaks Mall’? More safe Equally safe Less safe No answer

PAGE 103

90 Q5. In what ways do you feel courthouse security could improve? a. No improvement needed b. Need more visible security officers c. Need more visible surveillance cameras, CCTV d. Need to have mo re visible physical barriers such as Yes No d 1 More no. of doors, gates/fences d 2 More no. of Security screening stations Other comments: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Q6. How does walking through the ‘s creening station’ make you feel? a. Invasion of privacy b. Presumed to be guilty c. Insulting/degrading d. Racial discrimination e. Makes you feel more secure f. None of the above

PAGE 104

91 Q7. Have you been to any courthouse ot her than the Alachua County Courthouse? a. Yes b. No Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Q8. From a score of 1-5, can you rate how you feel about this Lobby? a. Open 1 2 3 4 5 Cluttered (with physical barriers) b. Friendly 1 2 3 4 5 Unfriendly c. Uninviting 1 2 3 4 5 Inviting d. Comfortable 1 2 3 4 5 Uncomfortable e. Dull 1 2 3 4 5 Colorful f. Unsafe 1 2 3 4 5 Safe

PAGE 105

92 Q9. How would you rate your ability to find y our way from ‘parking lo t’ or ‘bus stop’ to the entrance of the courthouse building? a. Easy 1 2 3 4 5 Difficult Q10. How would you rate your ability to find your way around in the courthouse from the entrance lobby to your destination? a. Easy 1 2 3 4 5 Difficult

PAGE 106

93 Background Information for demographic purposes: Q11. What is the purpose of your visit to the courthouse today? ________________________________________________________________________ Q12. What year were you born? 19 _ _ Q13. Gender a. Male b. Female Q14. What is the highest grade of school you have completed? a. 8th Grade b. 12th Grade c. 2 yrs of College d. 4 yrs of College e. Post graduate study f. Other ( Please specify): ___________________ Thank you very much

PAGE 107

94 APPENDIX J THE NUMBER OF VISITS BY THE LO BBY USERS TO THE ALACHUA COUNTY COURTHOUSE Figure 4.31. Pie charts showing th e percentages of the number of visits by the lobby users to the Alachua County Courthouse (N = 100), Question 1 of the survey First time 2-5 times More than 5 times 36% 43% 21%

PAGE 108

95 APPENDIX K RESULTS OF PAIRED SAMPLE TEST Table K-1 Comparison of user perceptions of personal safety in the six zones of the entrance lobby, Question 2 Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Deviati on Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 1 TotscZA TotscZB -2.090 2.332 .233 -2.553 -1.627 -8.964 99 .000 Pair 2 TotscZA TotscZC -1.798 2.352 .236 -2.267 -1.329 -7.607 98 .000 Pair 3 TotscZA TotscZD .047 2.848 .356 -.664 .758 .132 63 .896 Pair 4 TotscZA TotscZE -.913 2.790 .336 -1.583 -.243 -2.718 68 .008 Pair 5 TotscZA TotscZF 1.200 2.668 .596 -.048 2.448 2.012 19 .059 Pair 6 TotscZB TotscZC .313 1.595 .160 -.005 .631 1.953 98 .054 Pair 7 TotscZB TotscZD 2.234 2.448 .306 1.623 2.846 7.302 63 .000 Pair 8 TotscZB TotscZE 1.087 2.020 .243 .602 1.572 4.470 68 .000 Pair 9 TotscZB TotscZF 2.550 2.395 .535 1.429 3.671 4.762 19 .000 Pair 10 TotscZC TotscZD 1.875 2.112 .264 1.347 2.403 7.102 63 .000 Pair 11 TotscZC TotscZE .942 1.773 .213 .516 1.368 4.413 68 .000 Pair 12 TotscZC TotscZF 2.600 2.521 .564 1.420 3.780 4.611 19 .000 Pair 13 TotscZD TotscZE -.891 1.812 .244 -1.381 -.401 -3.646 54 .001 Pair 14 TotscZD TotscZF .938 1.731 .433 .015 1.860 2.167 15 .047 Pair 15 TotscZE TotscZF 1.294 2.312 .561 .105 2.483 2.308 16 .035

PAGE 109

96 Note : If, C.I (-ve, -ve), d 0, x < y, where (d = x y) C.I (+ve, +ve), d 0, x > y, C.I (-ve, +ve), d = 0, x = y p values = 0.05, we reject H and there exists significant difference between the perceptions of the two zones Explanation of table 1: Pair 1: Zone A – Zone B (outside entry plaza and reception area) For pair 1, p value < = 0.05, therefore, we reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And as d 0 and C.I. (-2.553, -1.627), a < b This above implies that the Zone A (outside entry plaza) was perceived to be less safe than the Zone B (reception area). Pair 2: Zone A – Zone C (outsi de entry plaza and waiting area) For pair 2, p value < = 0.05, therefore, we reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And as d 0 and C.I. (-2.267, -1.329), a < c This above implies that the Zone A (outside entry plaza) was perceived to be less safe than the Zone C (waiting area). Pair 3: Zone A – Zone D (outside entry plaza and reception area) For pair 3, p value > = 0.05, therefore we accept H ; i.e. there is no significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. As d = 0 and C.I. (-0.664, 0.758), a = d Henceforth there is no significant difference in the perception of sa fety between Zone A (outside entry plaza) and Zone D (restroom). Pair 4: Zone A – Zone E (outside entry plaza and elevator lobby)

PAGE 110

97 For pair 4, p value < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (-1.583, -0.243), Therefore, a < e Zone A (outside entry plaza) was perceived to be less safe than Zone E (elevator lobby). Pair 5: Zone A – Zone F (the outsid e entry plaza and the enclosed staircase) For pair 5, p value > = 0.05, Accept H ; i.e. there is no significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d = 0, C.I. (-0.048, 2.448), Therefore, a = f There is no significant difference in the per ception of safety between Zone A (outside entry plaza) and Zone F (enclosed staircase). Pair 6: Zone B – Zone C ( re ception area and waiting area) For pair 6, p value > = 0.05, Accept H ; i.e. there is no significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d = 0, C.I. (-0.005, 0.631), Therefore, b = c There is no significant difference in the percep tion of safety between Zone B and Zone C i.e. the reception area and the waiting area. Pair 7: Zone B – Zone D (reception area and restroom) For pair 7, p value < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (1.623, 2.846), Therefore, b > d Zone B (reception area) was perceived to be safer than Zone D (elevator lobby). Pair 8: Zone B – Zone E (the reception area and the elevator lobby)

PAGE 111

98 For pair 8, p value < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (0.602, 1.572), Therefore, b > e Zone B (reception area) was perceived to be safer than Zone E (enclosed staircase). Pair 9: Zone B – Zone F (recep tion area and enclosed staircase) For pair 9, p value < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (1.429, 3.671), Therefore, b > f Zone B (reception area) was perceived to be safer than Zone E (enclosed staircase). Pair 10: Zone C – Zone D (waiting area and restroom) For pair 10, p value < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (1.347, 2.403), Therefore, c > d Zone C (the waiting area) was perceived to be safer than Zone D (the restroom). Pair 11: Zone C – Zone E (w aiting area and elevator lobby) For pair 11, p value < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (0.516, 1.368), Therefore, c > e Zone C (waiting area) was perceived to be safer than Zone E (elevator lobby). Pair 12: Zone C – Zone F (wa iting area and enclosed staircase) For pair 12, p value = 0.001 < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a signi ficant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (1.420, 3.780), Therefore, c > f

PAGE 112

99 Zone C (the waiting area) was perceived to be sa fer than Zone F (the enclosed staircase). Pair 13: Zone D – Zone E (restroom and elevator lobby) For pair 13, p value < = 0.05, Reject H ; i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (-1.381, -0.401), Therefore, d < e Zone D (restroom) was perceived to be less safe than Zone E (elevator lobby). Pair 14: Zone D – Zone F (rest room and enclosed staircase) For pair 14, p value = 0.047 < = 0.05, Reject H i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (0.015, 1.860), Therefore, d > f Zone D (restroom) was perceived to be safe r than Zone F (enclosed staircase). Pair 15: Zone E – Zone F (eleva tor lobby and enclosed staircase) For pair 15, p value = 0.035 < = 0.05, Reject H i.e. there is a significant difference in the perception of safety among the end users in these two zones of the entrance lobby. And d 0, C.I. (0.105, 2.483), Therefore, e > f Zone E (elevator lobby) was perceived to be safer than Zone F (enclosed staircase).

PAGE 113

100 APPENDIX L GENERAL FEAR FACTOR (QUESTION 3 AND 4) N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Q3 100 1 3 2.51 .595 Q4 100 1 3 1.27 .510 Valid N (listwise) 100 In Q3, the mean of 2.51 indicates that the resear ch participants were not at all fearful of the four mentioned crimes happening to them in places other than the courthouse. In Q4, the mean of 1.27 indicates that the res earch participants felt equally safe in both the courthouse and the Oks Mall (Local mall in Gainesville).

PAGE 114

101 APPENDIX M USERS’ OPINION ABOUT THE SECU RITY OF THE ENTRANCE LOBBY (QUESTION 5) 01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Percent Figure 4-37. No improvement is required in the Alachua County Courthouse security (N=100) Yes 51% No 49%

PAGE 115

102 01 0 20 40 60 80Percent Figure 4-38. Does the courthouse need mo re visible security officers? (N=100) 01 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Percent Figure 4-39. Does the courthouse need more visible surveillance cameras, CCTV? (N=100) No 71% Yes 29% No 66% Yes 34%

PAGE 116

103 01 0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Figure 4-40. Does the courthouse need more visible physical barriers like doors, gates, fences etc? (N=100) 01 0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Figure 4-41. Does the courthouse need mo re security screening stations? (N=100) No 94% Yes 6% No 83% Yes 17%

PAGE 117

104 APPENDIX N USERS’ OPINION ABOUT THE SECURITY SCREENING STATION (QUESTION 6) 01Q6A 0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Q6A Figure 4-41. Invasion of privacy No 92% Yes 8%

PAGE 118

105 01Q6B 0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Q6B Figure 4-42. Presumed to be guilty 01Q6C 0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Q6C Figure 4-43. Insulting / degrading No 97% Yes 3% Yes 1% No 99%

PAGE 119

106 01Q6D 0 20 40 60 80 100Percent Q6D Figure 4-44. Racial discrimination 01Q6E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60Percent Q6E Figure 4-45. Feel more secure No 99% Yes 1% Yes 57% No 43%

PAGE 120

107 01Q6F 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Percent Q6F Figure 4-46. None of the above No 67% Yes 33%

PAGE 121

108 APPENDIX O USERS’ OPINION ABOUT THE AESTHETICS OF THE ENTRANCE LOBBY (QUESTION 8) 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-48. How do you feel in the entr ance lobby from OPEN -CLUTTERED? (N=100) 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-49. How do you feel in the l obby from FRIENDLY-UNFRIENDLY? (N=100) Open 69% Friendly 49% Unfriendly 6% Cluttered 3%

PAGE 122

109 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-50. How do you feel in the lobby from INVITING-UNINVITING? (N=100) 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-51. How do you feel in the lobby from COMFORTABLEUNCOMFORTABLE? (N=100) Inviting 36% Uninviting 12% Comfortable 56% Uncomfortable 13%

PAGE 123

110 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-52. How do you feel in th e lobby from DULL-COLORFUL? (N=100) 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-53. How do you feel in th e lobby from SAFE-UNSAFE? (N=100) Colorful/Liked 31% Dull 32% Mixed Reaction 37% Safe 74% Unsafe 3%

PAGE 124

111 APPENDIX P WAY FINDING (QUESTIONS 9 AND 10) 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-54. How easy was to find the c ourthouse from the parking? (N=100) 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 4-55. How easy was to find your way in the courthouse? (N=100) Easy 84% Difficult 6% Easy 89% Difficult 2%

PAGE 125

112 APPENDIX Q DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS (QUESTION 11, 12, 13 AND 14) Figure 4-32. Pie charts showi ng the percentages for the purpo se of visit to the Alachua County Courthouse (N = 100) Figure 4-33. Pie charts show ing the Age groups of the rese arch participants at the Alachua County Courthouse Entrance Lobby (N = 100) With someone For themselves Other 18 25 yrs 26 45 yrs Above 45 yrs 54% 14% 32% 38% 19% 43%

PAGE 126

113 Figure 4-34. Pie charts showi ng the gender of the research participants at the Alachua County Courthouse Entr ance Lobby (N = 100) Figure 4-35. Pie charts showing the education of the research participants at the Alachua County Courthouse Entr ance Lobby (N = 100) Figure 4-36. Pie charts showing the race of the research particip ants at the Alachua County Courthouse Entr ance Lobby (N = 100) Female Male 12t h grade Above 12th grade Black White Other 47% 53% 56% 44% 49% 40% 11%

PAGE 127

114 APPENDIX R MULTINOMIAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION Table 4-6. TEST 1: Multinomial Logistic Re gression for finding effects of demographic variables (independent variables) on the perceptions of personal safety (dependent variable) ZONE A, Likelihood Ratio Tests Effect -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept 2246.130(a) .000 0 . Q3 2493.502(b) 247.372 16 .000 Q4 267.384 . 16 . Q12 8467.220(b) 6221.090 16 .000 Q13 3428.021(b) 1181.891 8 .000 Q14 3723.270(b) 1477.140 8 .000 Q15 4045.420(b) 1799.290 16 .000 ZONE B, Likelihood Ratio Tests Effect -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept 158.235(a) .000 0 . Q3 185.150 26.914 14 .020 Q4 170.511 12.276 14 .584 Q12 172.939 14.703 14 .399 Q13 164.605 6.370 7 .497 Q14 170.224 11.989 7 .101 Q15 173.596 15.361 14 .354

PAGE 128

115 ZONE C, Likelihood Ratio Tests Effect -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept 170.481(a) .000 0 . Q3 195.191 24.710 16 .075 Q4 191.016 20.535 16 .197 Q12 198.439 27.959 16 .032 Q13 181.769 11.288 8 .186 Q14 187.351 16.870 8 .031 Q15 206.371 35.890 16 .003 ZONE D, Likelihood Ratio Tests Effect -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept 101.866(a) .000 0 . Q3 125.050(b) 23.184 16 .109 Q4 107.799(b) 5.934 16 .989 Q12 124.937(b) 23.071 16 .112 Q13 115.151(b) 13.286 8 .102 Q14 128.092(b) 26.227 8 .001 Q15 133.751 31.885 16 .010 ZONE E, Likelihood Ratio Tests Effect -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept 135.140(a) .000 0 . Q3 153.591 18.451 16 .298 Q4 154.614 19.474 16 .245 Q12 152.908 17.768 16 .338 Q13 138.633 3.492 8 .900 Q14 150.450 15.310 8 .053 Q15 167.468 32.328 16 .009

PAGE 129

116 ZONE F, Likelihood Ratio Tests Effect -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept 1.622(a) .000 0 . Q3 5.074(b) 3.452 10 .969 Q4 9.260(b) 7.638 10 .664 Q12 8.893(b) 7.271 10 .700 Q13 7.167(b) 5.545 5 .353 Q14 6.121(b) 4.499 5 .480 Q15 38.134(c) 36.512 10 .000 TOTAL ZONE (Overall result s of Logistic regression) Effect -2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig. Intercept 3.008(a) .000 0 . Q3 10.279(b) 7.271 26 1.000 Q4 5.781(b) 2.773 26 1.000 Q12 10.279(b) 7.271 26 1.000 Q13 5.781 2.773 13 .999 Q14 7.507 4.499 13 .985 Q15 13.052 10.044 26 .998 Note : If, the p values > = 0.05, therefore we accept H ; i.e. the effect of the independent variables are 0. p values = 0.05, we reject H ; i.e. there are significant effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable.

PAGE 130

117 APPENDIX S MULTIVARIATE TESTS (B) GENERAL LINEAR MODEL Table 4-7. TEST 2: Multivariate Tests (b) – General Linear Model, for finding effects of demographic variables (independent variab les) on the perceptions of personal safety (dependent variable) Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Q1Visit Pillai's Trace .842 2.674(a) 2.000 1.000 .397 Wilks' Lambda .158 2.674(a) 2.000 1.000 .397 Hotelling's Trace 5.348 2.674(a) 2.000 1.000 .397 Roy's Largest Root 5.348 2.674(a) 2.000 1.000 .397 Q3 Pillai's Trace .888 3.984(a) 2.000 1.000 .334 General Wilks' Lambda .112 3.984(a) 2.000 1.000 .334 fear Hotelling's Trace 7.967 3.984(a) 2.000 1.000 .334 Roy's Largest Root 7.967 3.984(a) 2.000 1.000 .334 Q4 Pillai's Trace .979 23.621(a) 2.000 1.000 .144 General Wilks' Lambda .021 23.621(a) 2.000 1.000 .144 fear Hotelling's Trace 47.242 23.621(a) 2.000 1.000 .144 Roy's Largest Root 47.242 23.621(a) 2.000 1.000 .144 Q11 Pillai's Trace .448 .407(a) 2.000 1.000 .743 Purpose Wilks' Lambda .552 .407(a) 2.000 1.000 .743 Hotelling's Trace .813 .407(a) 2.000 1.000 .743 Roy's Largest Root .813 .407(a) 2.000 1.000 .743 Q12 Pillai's Trace .918 5.631(a) 2.000 1.000 .286 Age Wilks' Lambda .082 5.631(a) 2.000 1.000 .286 Hotelling's Trace 11.261 5.631(a) 2.000 1.000 .286 Roy's Largest Root 11.261 5.631(a) 2.000 1.000 .286 Q13 Pillai's Trace .950 19.200(a) 1.000 1.000 .143 Gender Wilks' Lambda .050 19.200(a) 1.000 1.000 .143 Hotelling's Trace 19.200 19.200(a) 1.000 1.000 .143 Roy's Largest Root 19.200 19.200(a) 1.000 1.000 .143 Q14 Pillai's Trace .905 9.566(a) 1.000 1.000 .199 Education Wilks' Lambda .095 9.566(a) 1.000 1.000 .199 Hotelling's Trace 9.566 9.566(a) 1.000 1.000 .199 Roy's Largest Root 9.566 9.566(a) 1.000 1.000 .199 Q15 Pillai's Trace .978 21.786(a) 2.000 1.000 .150 Race Wilks' Lambda .022 21.786(a) 2.000 1.000 .150 Hotelling's Trace 43.571 21.786(a) 2.000 1.000 .150 Roy's Largest Root 43.571 21.786(a) 2.000 1.000 .150 Note: p values = 0.05, we reject H = Null Hypothesis

PAGE 131

118 APPENDIX T COPYRIGHT STATEMENT FOR USING THE MATRIX OF 25 SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY REDUCING TECHNIQUES The material featured on this site ( http://www.crimereduction. gov.uk/about_the_site.htm and http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/ learningzone/scptechniques.htm ) is subject to Crown copyright protection unless other wise indicated. The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Ro yal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any form at or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organization. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the mate rial must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. The permission to reproduce Crown protec ted material does not extend to any material on this site which is identifi ed as being the copyright of a third party. Authorization to reproduce such materi al must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. The Crime Reduction Website encourages us ers to establish hypertext links to the site. The Crime Let's Bring It Down logo may not be reproduced without explicit written permission from the Home Office Communication Directorate. Contact them on 020 7273 3072. For further information on Crown copyri ght policy and licensing arrangements, see the guidance featured on HMSO's website at http://www.hmso.gov.uk/guides.htm

PAGE 132

119 APPENDIX U COPYRIGHTS AND PERM ISSIONS FROM MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION

PAGE 133

120

PAGE 134

121 LIST OF REFERENCES Abott, P., Wansor, M., and Hasell, M.J. (1999). Assessment tool: Pre-design development, Gainesville: University of Flor ida College of Design, Construction, and Planning, Department of Interi or Design. Unpublished, class handout for Theory of Interior Design IND2635/5521, Spring 2005. The American Bar Association and The Am erican Institute of Architects. (1972). The American Courthouse Planning and Desi gn for the Judicial Process (Edward Brothers). Ann Arbor, Michigan. Archea, J.C. (1985). The use of architectural props in the conduc t of criminal acts. Journal of Architectur al and Planning Research , 2, 245-259. Bechtel, R. B., & Zeisel, J. (1987). Observa tion: The world under a glass. In Robert B. Bechtel, Robert W. Marans & William Michelson (Eds.), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research (pp. 11 – 40). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Brantingham, P.J., & Brantingham, P.J. (1981) . Introduction: The dimensions of crime. In Paul J. Brantingham & Patricia L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental Criminology (pp. 7-26). London: Sage Publications. Box, S., Hale, C., & Andrews,G. (1988). Explaining fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology , 28, 34-356. Breyer, S. (2004). Lobby security design: Fi rst impressions. In Barbara A. Nadel (Ed.), Building Security Handbook for Architectural Planning and Design (pp. 14.1 – 14.34). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ching, F. D. K. (1996). Architecture Space, Form and Order . New York: Wiley Clarke, R. V. (1983). Situational crime prev ention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. In M. Tonry and N.Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 4 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clarke, R. V. (n.d). Situati onal crime prevention technique s. Retrieved November 25, 2004, from http://www.crimere duction.gov.uk/learningzone/scp.htm Clarke, R. V. (1997). Introduction. In Ronald V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (pp. 2 – 15). New York: Harrow and Heston.

PAGE 135

122 Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (1993). Intr oduction: Criminology, Routine Activity, and Rational Choice. In Ronald V. Clarke & Marcus Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity and Rational Choice: Advances in Criminological Theory (pp. 1 – 14). New Brunswick: Transaction publishers. Clarke, R. V & Cornish, D.B. (2003). Retrieve on October 24, 2005 from, http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/le arningzone/scptechniques.htm Cohen, L .E., & Felson. M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review , 44, 588-608. Crowe, Timothy D. (1991). Aesthetics, envi ronmental cues, and te rritorial behavior: Implications for CPTED planning. In Timothy D. Crowe (Ed.), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design: Applicati ons of Architectural Design and Space Management Concepts (pp 93 – 104). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Crowe, Timothy D. (1991). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design: Applications of Architectural Design and Space Management Concepts . Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Deasy, C. M. (1985). Public places – Inside. In C. M. Deasy & Thomas E. Lasswell (Eds.), Designing Places for People: A Handbook on Human behavior for Architects, Designers, and Facility managers (pp 120 – 126). New York: WatsonGuptill Publications. Design notebook for federal building lobby security. (n.d).2003 U.S General Services Administration, U.S Marshals Servic e. Retrieved September 18, 2004, from http://www.aiany.org/eoculus/2003/01.09.03.htm Design Standards for U.S. Court Facilitie s. (n.d.). 2005. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from www.gsa.gov/Porta l/gsa/ep/contentView. do?P=PME&contentId=15102&contentType =GSA_DOCUMENT 53k Nov 20, 2005 DiLonardo, R. L. and Clarke, R. V. (1996). Reducing the rewards of shoplifting: An evaluation of ink tags. Security Journal , 7, 11-14. DLR Group’s news publication Doing Justice in Dow ntown Gainesville. (2004). Retrieved November 3, 2005 from, http://www.dlrgroupcorporate.com/news/nat ional/egroup/articles /article_16/gaines ville.htm Doll, L. ( 1975). Morphologies: A Theory and Case Study in Design Education, Austin: University of Texas College of Architecture. Unpublished paper.

PAGE 136

123 DuBow, F., McCube. E., and Kaplan, G. (1979). Reactions to crime: A critical review of the literature. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, U.S. Government Printing Office. Eck, J.E. (1995). A general model of the geogr aphy of illicit retail ma rket places. In D. Weisburd and J. Eck (Eds.). Crime and Place. Crime Prevenion Studies ( 4). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Farbstein, J & Kantrowitz, M. (1978). Boundari es and connections. In Jay Farbstein & Min Kantrowitz (Eds.), People in Places (pp. 69 – 73). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice –Hall, Inc. Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In D. Weisburd and J. Eck (Eds.). Crime and Place. Crime Prevenion Studies ( 4). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Ferraro, K. F. & LaGrange, R. (1987). The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry , 57(1), 70-101. First impressions program and first imp ressions signage guidelines. (n.d.).1998 U.S General Services Administration. Retrieved September 18, 2004, from http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/firstimpressions Fisher, B. (1991). A neighborhood business area is hurting: Crime, fear of crime, and disorders t ake their t oll, Crime & Delinquency , 37(3), 363-373. Fisher, B. F. & Nasar, J.L. (1992). Fear of crim e in relation to three ex terior site features: Prospect, refuge, and escape. Environment and Behavior , 24(1), 35-65. Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental Psychology: Pr inciples and Practice – 2nd edition . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gifford, R. (2002, a). Environmental Psychology: Pr inciples and Practice – 3rd edition . University of Victoria, Canada: Optimal Books. Gifford, R. (2002, b). Workplace environmental psychology. In Environmental Psychology Principles and Practice – 3rd edition (pp. 337 – 380). Canada: Optimal Books. Gifford, R. (2002, c). In Environmental Psychology: Pr inciples and Practice – 3rd edition (pp. 30). Canada: Optimal Books. Gottfredson, S., & Taylor, R. B. (1986). E nvironmental design, crime, and prevention: An examination of community dynamics. Communities and Crime , 8, 387416. Griebel, M., & Phillips, T. S. (2001). Arch itectural design for security in courthouse facilities. In Alan W. Hest on & Neil A. Weiner (Eds.), The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science Volume 576 (pp. 118 – 131). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

PAGE 137

124 Hardenbergh, D. (1991). Judicial facility design issues. In Don Hardenbergh, Michael Griebel, R. W. Tobin & Chang-Ming Yeh (Eds.), The Courthouse: A Planning and Design guide for Court facilities . (pp. 25 – 54). Williamsburg, Virginia. Hardenbergh, D. (1991). Judicial facility design issues. In Don Hardenbergh, Michael Griebel, R. W. Tobin & Chang-Ming Yeh (Eds.), The Courthouse: A Planning and Design guide for Court facilities . (pp. 19 – 56). Williamsburg, Virginia. Hardenbergh, D., & Weiner, N. A. (2001). Understanding and controlling violence against the judiciary and judicial official s. In Alan W. Heston & Neil A. Weiner (Eds.), The annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science Volume 576 (pp. 23 – 37). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Hasell, Mary Joyce. (1998). Morphological Cues for U nderstanding Buildings: Table 1, Gainesville: University of Florida Colle ge of Design, Construction, and Planning, Department of Interior Design. Unpublishe d, class handout for Theory of Interior Design IND2635/5521, Spring 2005. Hatch, M.J., & Schultz. (1997). Relation between organizational culture, identity, and image. European Journal of Marketing , 31(5/6), 356-365. Hunter, R. D. and Jeffery, C. R. (1992). Preventing convenience store robbery through environmental design . In Ronald V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (pp. 283-299). New York: harrow and Heston. Ito, K. (1993). Research on th e fear of crime: Perceptions and realities of crime in Japan. Crime & Delinquency , 39(3), 385-392. Ittelson, W., Rivlin, L., & Proshansky, H. (1970). The use of behavioral maps in environmental psychology. In Ittelso n, W., Rivlin, L., & Proshansky, H (Eds.), Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Jandura, K. J. & Campbell, D. R. (2004). Cour thouse security. In Barbara A. Nadel (Ed.), Building Security Handbook for Architectural Planning and Design (pp. 6.1 – 6.24). New York: McGraw-Hill. Jeffery C. Ray., & Zahm D. L. (1993). Crim e prevention through environmental design, opportunity theory, and rational choice mode ls. In Ronald V. Clarke & Marcus Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and Rational choice: Advances in Criminological Theory (pp. 323 – 350). New Brunswick: Transaction publishers. Jones, Casey. L. (2004). Lobby security design : First impressions. In Barbara A. Nadel (Ed.), Building Security Handbook for Ar chitectural Planning and Design (pp. 14.1 – 14.34). New York: McGraw-Hill. Kelly, T. (2004). Crime prevention through e nvironmental design. In Barbara A. Nadel (Ed.), Building Security Handbook for Ar chitectural Planning and Design (pp. 3.10 – 3.16). New York: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 138

125 LaGrange, R. & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessi ng age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27(4), 697-719. Landes, W. M. (1978). An economic study of U.S. aircraft hijacking, 1961-1976. Journal of Law and Economics , 21, 1-31. Lang, J. (1987) Creating Architectural Theory . New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold La Vigne, N. G. (1997). Security by design on the Washington metro. In Ronald V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational Crime Preventi on: Successful Case Studies (pp. 283-299). New York: Harrow and Heston. La Vigne, N. G. (1997). Visibi lity and vigilance: Metro’ s situational approach to preventing subway crime. Washingt on: U.S. Department of Justice. Laycock, G. K. (1991). Operation iden tification or the power of publicity? Security Journal , 2, 67-72. Lebowitz, B. (1975). Age and fearfulness: Personal and situational factors. Journal of Gerontology , 30, 696-700. Lee, G. R. (1982 a). Sex differences in fear of crime among older people. Research and Aging , 4, 284-298. Loewen, L. J., Steel, G. D., & Suedfeld, P. (1993). Perceived safety crime in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 13, 323-331. Maass, A., Merici, I., Villafranca, E., Furlan i, R., Gaburro, E., Getrevi, A., & Masserini, M. (2000). Intimidating buildings: Can cour thouse architecture affect perceived likelihood of conviction? Environment and Behavior , 32, 674 – 683. Madriz, E. (1996). The perception of risk in the workplace: A test of routine activity theory [Electronic Version]. Journal of Criminal Justice , 24, 407 – 418. Mayne, Thom (2003). Security design: Achiev ing transparent in civic architecture. A session at the 2003 AIA (The American Institute of Arch itects) National Convention, San Diego, California. McMahon, J. L. (1978). Court Security: A Manual of Guidelines and Procedures . Washington, D.C: Nationa l Sheriff’s Association Miller, M. C. (1997). Color for Interior Architecture . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Nadel, B. A. (2004). Lessons learned fr om September 11, 2001, and other benchmark events. In Barbara A. Nadel (Ed.), Building Security Handbo ok for Architectural Planning and Design (pp. 1.3 – 1.40). New York: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 139

126 Nadel, B., Feiner, E., Mayne, T., Predock, A., & Safdie, M. (2003). Security design: Achieving t ransparency in civic archite cture, 2003. A session at the 2003 AIA (The American Institute of Architects) National Conven tion, San Diego, California. Nasar, J. L. & Fisher, B. F. (1992). Desi gn for vulnerability: Cues and reactions t o fear of crime. Sociology and Social Research , 76(2), 48-58. Nasar, J. L. & Fisher, B. F. (1993). Hot spots of fear and crime: A multi-method investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 13, 187-206. Nasar, J. L., Fisher, B. F., & Grannis, M. (1993). Proximate physical cues to fear of crime. Landscape and Urban Planning , 26, 161-178. Nasar, J. L., & Jones, K. M. ( 1997). Landscapes of fear and stress. Environment and Behavior , 29(3), 291-323. National Clearinghouse for Criminal Jus tice Planning and Ar chitecture. (1976). A Courthouse Conservation Handbook (The preservation press, National trust for historic preservation). Washington, D.C. National Clearinghouse for Criminal Jus tice Planning and Ar chitecture. (1976). District of Columbia Superior Court Model Courtroom Evaluation (The small homes council – building re search council). Newman, O (Ed.). (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design . New York: The Macmillan Company Ornstein, S. (1992). First impr ession of the symbolic meaning connoted by reception area design . Environment and Behavior , 24(1), 85-110. Osmond, H (1957). Function as the ba sis of psychiatric ward design. Mental Hospitals (Architectural Supplement), 8, 23-30. Oliphant, J (2005). Shootings heighten judge s' security fears. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1110572411782. Park, J. (2005). First impressions of office reception spaces: communicating symbolic meanings through design elements and furnis hing arrangements. master’s abstract retrieved August 23, 2005, from, http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0010494 Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J.W. & Taylor, R.B. (1992). The physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 12, 21-34. Poyner, B. (1991). Situational crime pr evention in two parking facilities. Security Journal , 2, 96-101.

PAGE 140

127 Reynolds, P. & Blyth, D. ( 1976). Occurrence, reaction t o, and perception of victimization in an urban setting: Analys is of a survey in the Twin Cities region, Minnesota: University of Minnesota. Unpublished monograph. Rountree, P. W. & Land, K. C. (1996). Perceive d risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in s urvey data. Social Forces , 74(4), 1353-1376. Schneider, R. H., & Kitchen, T. (2002). Basi c theories and principles of place-based crime prevention planning. In Cliff Hague , Robin Boyle & Robert Upton (Eds.), Planning for Crime Prevention: A Transatlantic Perspective (pp. 91 – 118). London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis group. Shearing, C. D., & Stenning, P. C. (1997). From the panopticon to Disney world: The development of discipline. In Ronald V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (pp. 300-304). New York: Harrow and Heston. Silberman, C. (1981). Fear. In Robert C. Culbertson and Mark R. (Eds.), Order Under Law: Readings in Criminal Justice (pp. 5-21). Prospect Heights, III.: Waveland Press, Inc. Skogan, W. G. (1986). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. Communities and Crime , 8, 203-229. Skogan, W. G. & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with Crime . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sommer, R. (1983). Theo retical influences. In Robert Sommer (Ed.), Social Design (pp 33 – 49). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice –Hall, Inc. Sommer, R. (1969). Small group eco logy. In Robert Sommer (Ed.), Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design (pp. 58 – 73). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice –Hall, Inc. Sommer, R. (1983). Social Design . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice –Hall, Inc. Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. (2001). Attitude and rating scales. In A Practical Guide to Behavioral Research (pp. 159 – 176). New York: Oxford University press. Sundeen, R. A. & Mathieu, J. T. (1976). The fear of crime and its consequences among elderly in three urban communities. The Gerontologist , 16(3), 211-219. USMS Key Elements: Court s ecurity officer lobby scr eening stations. (n.d). 2000 U.S.Marshals Service. Retrieved September 20, 2004, from http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/duties/courts.htm U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). Visibility and vigilance: Metro’ s situational approach to preventing subway crime. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://www.ncjrs.org

PAGE 141

128 U.S. Courts Design Guide. (2005). Retrieved February 20, 2005, from www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView. do?P=PME&contentId=15102&contentType =GSA_DOCUMENT 53k Nov 20, 2005 U.S General Services Administration (2005). Retrieved June 29, 2005 from http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/conten tView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&co ntentId=14211&noc=T ). Veno, A. and Veno, E. (1993). Situational preven tion of public disorder at the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix. In Ronald V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies , Vol. 1 . Monsey, NY:Criminal Justice Press. Vrij,A., & Winkel, F. W. (1991). Characteristi cs of the built environment and fear of crime: a research note on interventions in unsafe locations. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal , 12, 203-215. Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (1981). A cogniti ve social learning approach to the crossroads of cognition, soci al behavior, and the envir onment. In John H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment (pp. 393 – 407). Hillsdale, NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1983). Fear of vic timization: A look at the p roximate causes. Social Forces , 61(4), 1033-1043. Warr, M. (1987). Fear of victimi zation and sensitivity to risk. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 3, 29-46. Warren, R. (2001). Violence in the judicial w orkplace. In Alan W. Heston & Neil A. Weiner (Eds.), The annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science Volume 576 (pp. 19 – 22). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Weisberg, S. T. (2004). Lessons learned from September 11, 2001 and other benchmark events. In Barbara A. Nadel (Ed.), Building Security Handbo ok for Architectural Planning and Design (pp. 1.3 – 1.40).New York: McGraw-Hill. Wilkinson, P. (1977). Terrorism and the Liberal State . London: Macmillan. Wilkinson, P. (1986). Terrorism and the Liberal State , 2nd. ed. New York: New York University Press. Wong, F.Michael. (1973). Courthouse security. In Space Management and the Court Design Handbook (pp. 83-111). Washington D.C: U. S Government Printing Office. Yee, R., & Gustafson, K. (1983). Corporate Design . New York, NY: Interior Design Books.

PAGE 142

129 Yin, P.P. (1980). Fear of crime among el derly: Some issues and suggestions. Social Problems, 27(4), 492-504. Zimring, C. M., & Reizenstein, J. E. (1980) . Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview. Environment and Behavior , 12, 429-451. Zimring, C. M. (1987). Evaluation of de signed environments: Methods for postoccupancy evaluation. In Robert B. Bechtel, Robert W. Marans & William Michelson (Eds.), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research (pp. 270 – 300). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

PAGE 143

130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Born on 6th December 1979, Smita grew up in Mu mbai, the commercial capital of India. From a very young age she displayed a keen interest in drawing, art, paintings and dance. Ever since, her parents and art teac hers encouraged her to pursue a career in art and architecture. After completing of her formal education in the field of science, and a six-year program in Bharatanatyam – a form of Indian classical dance – Smita joined the Sir J.J College of Architecture at the University of Mumbai and earn ed a five-year Bachelor of Architecture degree in 2001. She worked as an intern architect at Goa, India, with renowned Indian architect Mr. D ean D’ Cruz and then as a junior architect for Edifice Architects Pvt. Ltd – one of India’s topmost ar chitectural and interior design firms. Eager to further explore the relations hip between external form, the spaces created within such forms and their effects on users, Smita chose to further pursue her stud ies in the U.S. In Fall 2003, she decided to join the Master of In terior Design program at the College of Design, Construction and Planning in the Univers ity of Florida. She was appointed as a graduate research assistant for Dr. Helena Moussatche (Fall 2003 & Spring 2003), Prof. Candy Carmel-Gilfilin (Fall 2005) and as a graduate teaching assistant for Dr. Margaret Portillo (Fall 2005). In 2005, Smita received the Diane Fisher Award for her outstanding research contributions to both the Univer sity of Florida a nd the community of Gainesville.

PAGE 144

131 Upon her graduation in Fall 2005, Smita plan s to pursue both design and research projects as an architect with a focus in interior design at a multidisciplinary design firm.