Outdoor Lighting and Crime - Amper

What would be helpful now would be studies in which lighting increases were followed up
not only for checking the stability of any changes in crime, but also to track developmental
changes linked to the stimulus of brighter lighting. Painter and Farrington (2001b, p 9)
explained why there were no follow-ups in Dudley and Stoke-on-Trent:
“It would have been desirable to investigate the permanence of the reductions in
crime by conducting follow-up surveys, but unfortunately further environmental
improvements were carried out in all areas which made it difficult to disentangle the
effects of the improved street lighting.”
Further detail was given about the Dudley estate in Painter and Farrington (2001a, p 284):
“When the experimental estate was revisited in December 1994, it had changed out
of all recognition (Painter 1995: 314). The Tenants’ Association, in conjunction
with the Housing Department, had obtained £10m from the Department of the
Environment for a programme of neighbourhood improvements. According to the
Tenants’ Association, improved street lighting was the catalyst that signalled that the
estate could be improved and that encouraged them to bid for more money. The fact
that, at the time of the after survey, the estate was improving and was expected to
improve even more probably led to increased community confidence and increased
optimism by young people, including optimism by young people about finding a job.
The changes in the experimental estate unfortunately made it impossible to carry out
a follow-up study to investigate how far the effects of improved street lighting on
crime persisted over time.”
Now, follow-up studies appear to be greatly desirable instead of “impossible”. Attention
would need to be extended to the economics aspects of the changes that have taken place,
insofar as these may have affected the incidence and type of crime.
Johnson, Bowers and Hirschfield (1997) studied repeated burglaries in the Merseyside area of
the UK. Elevated risk of such repeat victimisation has been widely reported by others. The
risk of a repetition reduces exponentially with time since the previous burglary. Johnson et al.
offered an explanation that the victims would tend to install security equipment after a
burglary and that as this might take time, it would favour early repeating. This implies that on
repeat occasions, burglars target properties that are more likely to have security equipment
than previously and more likely than is typical of properties in the area. Burglars could be
expected to know this, which appears to run counter to the disproportionately high number of
repeats. But if the addition of outdoor security lighting or increased street lighting is
frequently among the reactive measures, the interpretation now is that the lighting increases
the attractiveness of the property to the burglar. The matter is obviously complex, but this
aspect would seem worth checking. Another aspect of the Johnson et al. paper is their use of
the concept of burglary hotspots. It could be worth seeing if these areas are also a diffuse
form of lighting hotspots.
Field (1999) developed a model of property crime linked to periods of economic growth and
recession. Thefts and burglaries are linked to the stock of crime opportunities. In turn, these
rise following a succession of good years. The rates for these crimes also rise with increases
in the number of males aged between 15 and 20. On casual inspection, the similarity of
graphs of the economic model and recorded thefts and robberies is compelling. Lighting is
not in the model. However, expenditure on lighting could be expected to vary with economic
conditions in a way that would tend to couple increased lighting with increased theft and
54