The Future of Newman's Defensible Space Theory
| Author | Danielle M. Reynald,Henk Elffers |
| Published date | 01 January 2009 |
| Date | 01 January 2009 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1477370808098103 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Volume 6 (1): 25–46: 1477-3708
DOI: 10.1177/1477370808098103
Copyright © 2009 European Society of
Criminology and SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC
www.sagepublications.com
The Future of Newman’s Defensible
Space Theory
Linking Defensible Space and the Routine Activities
of Place
Danielle M. Reynald
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement,
Netherlands
Henk Elffers
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement,
Netherlands
ABSTRACT
This paper will highlight the evolution of defensible space theory – from
Newman’s original theoretical model to some of the subsequent theoretical and
empirical developments that have been made in the past 35 years. By charting
these developments in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of
defensible space, the aim of this paper is to illuminate the aspects of the theory
that remain ambiguous and those that have been clarified to some extent by
developments in criminological research. This paper will suggest that the most
ambiguous of Newman’s concepts is that of ‘milieu’. It will be argued that this
key defensible space concept draws on situational aspects of spatial layout and
accessibility, land-use patterns and routine activities of place. With this in mind,
this paper will attempt to re-conceptualize defensible space within the context
of situational crime prevention theory by elucidating the effect that routine
activities of place have on territoriality and the creation of defensible space.
KEY WORDS
Defensible Space / Routine Activities / Situational Crime Prevention /
Territoriality.
Introduction
The creation of urban environments that are defensible against crime has
been a focal point of criminological discourse from as far back as the 1960s,
when sociologists discovered that certain places, like people, possess a
higher risk of being victimized than others. ‘How is it’, Stark (1987: 893)
asked, ‘that neighbourhoods can remain the site of high crime and deviance
rates despite a complete turnover of their populations?’ With the view that
neighbourhood population characteristics provide inadequate explanations
of variations in crime rates, Stark (1987: 893) asserted that ‘there must be
something about places as such that sustain crime’. Although much attention
in criminology has rested on sociological explanations of the concentration
of crime at place – such as social disorganization and control theories –
many researchers have subsequently changed focus, looking to the built
environment rather than the sociological context for causal explanations of
crime (e.g. Jacobs 1961; Newman 1972; Jeffrey 1999). The central tenet of
this school of thought is that the physical design and layout of urban living
environments are a principal factor that determines why some places are
more vulnerable to crime than others. With this principle, the crime–design
thesis offered an exclusive selling-point, because it emphasized the fact that
the built environment is more easily manipulable than the sociological con-
text, making it a potentially more fruitful angle from which to tackle crime
prevention at place.
The dominant theoretical framework put forward to explain the
unique contribution that environmental design and layout play in creating
opportunities for crime is Oscar Newman’s (1972) defensible space theory.
In fact, all contemporary approaches and discussions of the crime–design
relationship use Newman’s defensible space theory as a critical point of
reference (e.g. Clarke 1992; Beavon et al. 1994; Taylor and Harrell 1996;
Felson 1998; Jeffrey 1999; Mawby 2001; Feeley 2004; Baran et al. 2006).
Newman’s defensible space concept refers to the systematic way in which
the physical design of urban residential environments can be manipulated
in order to create spaces or places that are less vulnerable to crime by pro-
viding residents with more opportunities to control their space and defend
it if necessary.
In spite of its durable contribution and continuing influence in the
field of criminology, Newman’s theory has been criticized as extensively as
it has been influential. Since its birth, defensible space theory has come
under severe attack by academics who have criticized Newman’s method-
ology and his concepts on the grounds that they are too vague and ill
defined to be empirically tested (e.g. Hillier 1973; Mawby 1977; Mayhew
1979; Taylor et al. 1980; Merry 1981). Although these criticisms have been
26 European Journal of Criminology 6(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial