Search

Research Summary: This article reports on an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effects of street lighting interventions on crime in public places. Following Campbell Collaboration guidelines, it uses robust criteria for inclusion of studies, comprehensive search strategies to identify eligible studies, a detailed protocol for coding key study characteristics, and rigorous methods for analyzing studies. A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, originating in four countries (United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Korea) and covering almost 50 years (1974–2021). The review finds that street lighting interventions are associated with a significant desirable effect on total crime (14% reduction in treatment areas compared with comparable control areas); desirable effects are greater in studies that measured both night and day crimes than in studies that only measured night crimes; and street lighting is followed by a significant reduction in property crimes, but not in violent crimes. Policy Implications: Compared to past years, it would seem that an even stronger case can be made today for street lighting interventions to be part of crime‐prevention policy. A larger body of high‐quality evaluation research, implemented in a range of high‐crime public places, some evidence of value for money, and a continued desirable impact on crime, especially property crime, all point to the policy relevance of street lighting interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on the findings of previous studies regarding the impact of improved street lighting in reducing criminality. Historical evaluation on the correlation between lighting and crime; Discussion on the components of lighting programs; Recommendations for further analysis on lighting systems.

The present study assessed the comparative effectiveness of two forms of surveillance in preventing crime in public space: formal surveillance, in the form of closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras, and natural surveillance, in the form of improved street lighting. Based on the highest quality available research evidence on these two measures -- from systematic reviews incorporating meta-analytic techniques -- it was found that they are equally effective in reducing crime. More detailed analyses showed that improved street lighting was more effective in reducing crime in city centers, that both were more effective in reducing property crimes than violent crimes, and that both measures were far more affective in reducing crime in Britain than in America. Policy implications: The result of this study lend support for the continued use of CCTV and improved street lighting to reduce crime, but they suggest that they need to be targeted more narrowly on property crimes. A policy that combines the two interventions may produce a greater yield in reduced crime rates, but this may be limited to vehicle crimes in car parks. Improved street lighting is an effective form of surveillance to reduce crime in public space, and it may attract less public resistance than CCTV surveillance cameras (in America at least). Lessons from the British studies to help improve the effectiveness of the two measures in America are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduces the article "Surveillance for Crime Prevention in Public Space: Results and Policy Choices in Britain and America," by Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington which focused on crime prevention strategies in Great Britain and the U.S. Role of closed-circuit television (CCTV) and street lighting in preventing crime; Efficacy of the two preventive measures in different environments; Criticisms on the subjectivity of street lighting; Issues on the effectiveness of preventive measures in crime incidence.