Outdoor Lighting and Crime - Amper

At least in the longer term and for light levels at least those required for mobility safety, the
net indirect all-hours parts of the lighting, commerce and crime interaction generally appear to
override any direct net effects that lighting may have in hindering and facilitating crime at
night. Therefore, controlled before-after studies like those used by Painter and others now
appear to be of little value unless rigorous time-series spatial tracking of ambient light,
commerce and crime is incorporated at the outset. 52
Fortunately, quasi-experimental testing of the new hypothesis does seem possible with
existing methodologies and manageable sample sizes and durations. 53 The implications of the
hypothesis for urban growth control, decentralisation planning and urban design appear farreaching
indeed. Studies of the interactions in these areas may also assist understanding of
lighting and crime interactions.
Economists and others have already found numerous examples of real-world variables with a
coupled growth and two-way or indeterminate causal direction. A criminological example is
the complex two-way positive and negative causal interactions of informal surveillance with
each of robbery and burglary (Bellair 2000). Bellair also reviewed existing knowledge of a
two-way causality between crime and fear of crime and interactions between these factors and
others such as social networks and surveillance.
Another example is the link between police numbers and crime in the longer term (Marvell
and Moody 1996, p 618). As it has been possible to get around the problem of apparent
simultaneity in studying that relationship, it should be feasible to do the same with lighting
and crime. For example, perturbing the relationship by the introduction of effective controls
on lighting waste and other measures to reduce ambient outdoor lighting at night should allow
quantification of any time delays and resultant effects on crime. Causal direction tests, such
as the Granger test (eg Marvell and Moody 1996, p 617), may be applicable, subject to the
caveats raised in the preceding section.
Historically, lighting has been increased as a crime prevention measure that now appears to be
futile at best in its direct effect, while its indirect and counterproductive effects now appear to
dominate, albeit largely via commerce. When other measures for controlling crime fall short
of fully compensating for the indirect effect, further lighting increases continue the cycle,
subtly making the crime problem worse. Urban and, increasingly, suburban commercial
centres lead the way for suburbs and rural settlements with ever-brighter lighting. Politicians,
urban designers, architects, the lighting and power industries, the advertising industry,
business organisations and crime prevention practitioners all foster the trend to more and
brighter lighting which results in more ambient light, more light trespass, more upward waste
light, and ultimately, it now appears, more crime. The time is well overdue for such cycles to
be stopped and their antisocial legacy effects not only to be contained but reversed.
areas. Zero ULR shielding of luminaires should be universal and mandatory. Pole heights
and spacings may need to be adjusted accordingly.
52 The Scientific Methods Score used by Eck (1997) assigns a score of 3 to controlled beforeafter
studies or time-series studies with at least 5 time periods prior to the intervention.
53 The writer, an amateur astronomer and no longer doing funded research, willingly leaves
such tasks to those with adequate resources.
53