Critical Criminology

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 257–272 | Cite as

Risky Reports: Crime Risk Assessments and Spatial Governance

  • Murray Lee
  • Garner Clancey
  • Daren Fisher


The identification, assessment, and minimization of crime risk has permeated practices that extend well beyond traditional criminal justice responses. This article analyses crime risk assessment reports and the guidelines and processes through which they are produced for large-scale commercial and residential developments and redevelopments, taking New South Wales Australia as a case study. The article suggests that although the crime risk assessment guidelines and reports deploy a language of risk, there is a messiness and inconsistency to the crime risk assessment process that raises significant questions its normative utility. The article concludes that the language and promise of risk minimisation can silence or ‘black box’ what appear to be coherent regulatory process making them little more than symbolic gestures.


Crime Prevention Crime Statistic Critical Criminologist Crime Risk Architectural Plan 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank Professor Pat O’Malley and Associate Professor Thomas Crofts for comments and feedback on drafts of this article.


  1. Armitage, R., Monchuk, L., & Rogerson, M. (2011). It looks good, but what is it like to live there? Exploring the impact of innovative housing design on crime. European Journal on Crime Policy and Research, 17(1), 29–54.Google Scholar
  2. Atlas, R. (2008). 21st century security and CPTED: Designing for critical infrastructure protection and crime prevention. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  5. Book, E., & Schneider, R. (2010). Crime prevention through environmental design: CPTED 40 years later. The Police Chief. Accessed 8 Dec 2012.
  6. Castel, R. (1991). From dangerousness to risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 281–298). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clancey, G. (2011). Are we still “Flying Blind”: Crime data and local crime prevention in NSW. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(3), 491–500.Google Scholar
  8. Clancey, G., Fisher, D., & Lee, M. (2011). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and the New South Wales crime risk assessment guidelines: A critical review. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(5).Google Scholar
  9. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. In M. J. Smith & D. B. Cornish (Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention, crime prevention studies (Vol. 16). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cozens, P. (2008). Crime prevention through environmental design. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Cozens, P., Saville, G., & Hiller, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cozens, P., Thorn, M., & Hillier, D. (2008). Designing out crime in Western Australia: A case study. Property Management, 26(5), 295–309.Google Scholar
  13. Crowe, T. D., & National Crime Prevention Institute (University of Louisville). (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design: Applications of architectural design and space management concepts (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  14. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ericson, R. V. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  17. Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  18. Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1994). Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. The futures of criminology (pp. 173–201). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gurran, N. (2007). Australian urban land use planning: Introducing statutory planning practice in New South Wales. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Haywood, J., Kautt, P., & Whitaker, A. (2009). The Effects of ‘Alley-Gating’ in an English Town. European Journal of Criminology, 6(4), 361–381.Google Scholar
  25. Hudson, B. (2001). Punishment, rights and difference: Defending justice in the risk society. In K. Stenson & R. R. Sullivan (Eds.), Crime, risk and justice: The politics of crime control in liberal democracies. Devon: Willan.Google Scholar
  26. Hughes, G. (2007). The politics of crime and community. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  27. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  28. Kelpczarek, J. (2003). From common sense to common practice. Paper presented to housing, crime and stronger communities conference. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvester Wheatsheaf: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  30. Lippert, R., & Stenson, K. (2010). Advancing governmentality studies. Theoretical Criminology, 14(4), 473–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2006). Civilising security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lupton, D. (1999). Risk. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. McCauley, L., & Opie, A. (n.d.). Research about the use of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) by local authorities in New Zealand. Ministry of Justice and Local Government New Zealand.Google Scholar
  35. McDonald, K., & Kitteringham, G. (2004). A case of rogue gatherings (and other CPTED tales): Find out how the Calgary (Canada) Police Service has spread the word on CPTED and translated it into action. Security Management, 48(6).Google Scholar
  36. Minnery, J. R., & Lim, B. (2005). Measuring crime prevention through environmental design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 22(4), 330–338.Google Scholar
  37. Morin, M. E. (2009). Cohabitating in the globalised world: Peter Sloterdijk’s global foams and Bruno Latour’s cosmopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(1), 58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neuman, W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  39. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: People and design in the violent city. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  40. New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2005). National guidelines for crime prevention through environmental design in New Zealand. Wellington: NZ Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  41. NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. (2001). Crime prevention and the assessment of development applications: Guidelines under section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Sydney: DUAP.Google Scholar
  42. NSW Police (2012). Safer by design. Accessed 10 June 2012.
  43. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2004). Safer places: The planning system and crime prevention. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  44. O’Malley, P. (2010). Crime and risk. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Pratt, J. (2007). Penal populism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Queensland Government. (2007). Crime prevention through environmental design: Guidelines for Queensland. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
  47. Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and society, 25(3), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.Google Scholar
  49. Rosenbaum, D. P., Lurigio, A. J., & Davis, R. C. (1998). The prevention of crime: Social and situational strategies. Belmont: West/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  50. Scottish Executive Planning Department. (2006). Designing safer places, Planning Advice Note PAN 77. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Planning Department.Google Scholar
  51. Shaftoe, H. (2004). Crime prevention: Facts, fallacies and the future. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  52. Shaftoe, H., & Read, T. (2005). Planning out crime: The appliance of science or an act of faith? In N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Sloterdijk, P. (2004). Spharen III (the spheres III): Schaume (the foams). Suhrkamp, Frankfurt: Plurale Spharologie.Google Scholar
  54. Sloterdijk, P. (2005). Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals: Für eine philosophische Theorie der Globalisierung (1. Aufl ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  55. South Australian Department of Transport and Urban Planning. (2004). Designing out crime: Design solutions for safer neighbourhoods. Adelaide: SA Department of Transport and Urban Planning.Google Scholar
  56. Stenson, K. (2005). Sovereignty, biopolitics and the local government of crime in Britain. Theoretical Criminology, 9(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sutton, A., Cherney, A., & White, R. (2008). Evaluating crime prevention, in crime prevention: Principles, perspective and practices. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Valverde, M. (2005). Authorizing the production of urban moral order: Appellate courts and their knowledge games. Law & Society Review, 39(2), 419–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valverde, M. (2011). Questions of security: A framework for research. Theoretical Criminology, 15(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment. (2005). Safer design guidelines for Victoria. Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment.Google Scholar
  61. Western Australian Planning Commission. (2006). Designing out crime planning guidelines. Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission.Google Scholar
  62. Zedner, L. (2009). Security. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney Institute of Criminology, Sydney Law SchoolUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations