Andrew Newton

This study examines crime in suburban Abuja, Nigeria, to assess whether the patterns of crime concentration commonly identified in developed contexts are also evident in an understudied, data-poor suburban African setting. In the absence of granular police crime data, the study utilised detailed, georeferenced door-to-door survey data from over 3,000 properties at the individual-property level, which were subsequently aggregated to street-segment and neighbourhood units. The levels of crime concentration were assessed using descriptive statistics, Lorenz curves and generalised G’ statistics. The findings indicate that crime is concentrated across all spatial units, assuming equal opportunity distributions within each unit. These findings are broadly consistent with previous studies from developed countries and suggest that place-based prevention strategies targeting high-crime locations may also be applicable in similar developing-country contexts.

From its origins in Crime as Opportunity and related papers, through to its current incorporation within crime science, the concept of opportunity has played an important role in research and practice. Yet much of the thinking behind the concept has remained implicit, intuitive and static. A chance to take the concept forward in a practical, yet rigorous way arose when developing a detailed interactive toolkit to guide security managers of large and complex stations to prevent, and prepare responses to, terrorist attacks and other crimes more typical of such places. We describe the requirement for the toolkit; the conceptual architecture we developed, with particular reference to opportunity and how it meshes with other crime science concepts such as crime precipitation, and with broader concepts from traditional security practice such as threat and risk management; and the practical realisation through a process that matches security actions to the threat posed by terrorists/criminals and the risk generated in the particular environment of complex stations. We finish by considering how the development of the toolkit advanced the concept of opportunity.

This book offers a comprehensive overview of areas with elevated levels of crime, which we consider ‘risky places.’ These can be facilities, nodes, or paths and can be found everywhere, from small towns to megacities. Crime and fear are examined from the perspective of those who use these places, based on examples from the US, the UK, Sweden, Nigeria, Brazil, China, Australia, and more. Advocating for a systems thinking approach, the book shows what can be learned from risky places and identifies ways to address their inherent problems. The book also assesses current barriers to applying systems thinking and identifies ways to foster interconnected long-term crime prevention strategies that meet the diverse needs of multiple stakeholders. Aimed at academics, students, and professionals in urban planning, criminology, geography, and related fields, this book is a vital resource for those dedicated to creating safer, more inclusive, and sustainable environments. The Open Access version of this book, available at https://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

In this chapter, we explore the dynamic roles of those who have influence over and shape the urban landscape and the implications of this for preventing crime in risky places. Our discussion encompasses an exploration of the interplay between the diverse elements of the urban planning process and the actors involved, highlighting how they influence each other. We draw a critical comparison between conventional situational crime prevention approaches and the broader application of systems thinking from the perspective of those who influence, manage, and shape risky places. This includes a consideration of the policy frameworks at both national and supra-national levels, with a specific focus on Sweden and the UK. The chapter culminates with a hypothetical example in which we apply systems thinking principles to offer insight into possible effective urban governance and crime prevention.

In this chapter, we examine the third of our three key elements of risky places, namely risky paths and risky journeys, and explore this by considering the concept of street networks. Paths may be short distances and highly localized or connect places further apart. Routes traveled by individuals and groups may be short or extensive and consist of single or even multiple trips. Users may travel using a range of transport modes, for example, on foot, via bicycle, public transport, or other for-hire or private vehicles. For offenders and victims to be present in a risky place, they will have either traveled from somewhere else, or lived or worked there. However, risky places are generally not made risky by their residential population alone. What is often missing from our understanding of risky places is an understanding of the paths taken to reach these places. From a systems thinking perspective, we may ask what the purpose of these trips is and how they connect the different elements of a broader system together. This chapter reviews what is known about risky pathways and how we can reframe our ideas of traditional risky paths within a systems thinking approach.

In this chapter, we review key place-based theories that have conventionally been used to understand crime patterns at risky places. We review salient ideas that have informed our knowledge of risky places, linked to patterns in place and time, the interaction between people and their environments, and why and how factors converge at particular places and times to develop concentrated pockets or opportunities for crime. We acknowledge how these can be considered at different scales, and we discuss why we break down risky places into three key elements: risky facilities, risky nodes, and risky pathways and journeys. We also explore some factors that make people feel unsafe in risky places. We then explore the principal components of systems thinking identified in Chapter 2 and consider how these can support and add value to conventional place-based approaches to preventing crime at risky places.

Risky places for crime are interesting real-life cases from a governance perspective because they often require balancing immediate crime reduction actions with long-term interventions. However, current organizational structures provide a series of obstacles to developing more sustained crime prevention. Beyond this, there are many situations where well-intended policies produce unintended and often adverse outcomes, what are often called system traps or systems archetypes. In this chapter, we illustrate situations when these problems create opportunities for action. The use of systems thinking is deemed crucial for addressing persistent problems, avoiding rigid long-term solutions, and empowering local practice to bridge the gap between aspirations and reality collaboratively.

The chapter introduces the fundamental concepts of systems thinking used in this book. We advocate for systems thinking as a framework for developing sustainable crime prevention for risky places. We detail the principal components of systems thinking used in this book, including how we define a system, what we mean by its elements, and central ideas such as interconnectedness, beneficiaries, feedback loops, leverage points, and boundaries. We then examine the city as a system through the principles of systems thinking to examine how this can be applied to risky places and crime prevention. We discuss some of the key differences between conventional and systems thinking approaches applied to the governance of risky places, emphasizing the interconnectedness of elements across the systems structures and levels of the systems across types of urban planning models. We then briefly consider the role of governance in systems thinking as applied to crime prevention in risky places.

This chapter outlines the aim, scope, and structure of the book. It provides a definition of ‘risky places’ and identifies their importance for crime and feelings of safety. We also introduce the need for new ways to understand the complex dynamics of these places. In this chapter, we justify why we advocate for systems thinking for preventing crime in risky places. This approach considers the context of risky places and their interconnectedness with the broader urban system and supports a longer-term integrated approach. We emphasize the need for a shift in the analysis and governance of risky places through a systems thinking lens.

This chapter offers a skeleton framework for preventing crime at risky places by fusing conventional analysis approaches with systems thinking. We outline a series of steps that can be utilized to support systems thinking for developing a user-informed, in-depth understanding of crime problems at risky places. This requires us to acknowledge the interconnectedness of multiple factors present at risky places and move away from conventional reductionist linear methods and preconceived ideas about addressing crime problems at risky places. This allows us to think more freely about the nature of crime problems in risky places and to re-frame our conventional methods through a systems thinking perspective to develop long-term sustainable approaches to crime prevention.