JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 2020, VOL. 19, NO. 3, 264–272 https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2020.1726762 Awareness of crime prevention eﬀects associated with a wall removal project in Seoul Byungsuk Kim and Jina Park Department of Urban Planning, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Received 17 September 2019 This study investigated Groups' awareness of how wall removal aﬀects crime prevention. Group 1 Accepted 18 January 2020 comprised of burglars, Group 2 of non-residents who have not removed walls, and Group 3 of residents who have removed walls and are living in wall removal project areas. First, we examine KEYWORDS diﬀerences in awareness between Groups 1 and 2 regarding ease of crime in relation to the Wall removal; CPTED; presence or absence of a wall. Second, we examined the awareness levels of Groups 1 and 2 in detached housing area; relation to important factors considered by intruders when committing a burglary. Finally, we burglary; natural surveillance examined how wall removal reduces the fear of crime in Groups 2 and 3. Group 1 believed a house with a wall was an easier target for crime, but Group 2, comprised of residents who did not perform wall removal, had contrary opinions. Group 2 believed that wall removal did not reduce the fear of crime, unlike Group 3. These results indicate that Group 2 has negative perceptions of wall removal in the context of crime prevention, which stems from the common belief that a wall will protect a house from outside threats. Therefore, changes in mindset are needed to create safe environments in detached housing areas. 1. Introduction residents are unfamiliar with the evidence and disagree with the idea of wall removal because they feel that it Crime is inevitable in cities, and people recognize crime would actually encourage problems such as burglary as one of the biggest problems associated with living in and invasion of privacy. Such awareness might be inﬂu- a city (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1993). Instances of enced by the portrayal of walls as protective barriers crime have been increasing in Korea, especially property against the outside world. To leverage wall removal for damage via burglary. The number of burglaries increased crime prevention, it is necessary to change residents’ from 77,980 in 2003 to 91,093 in 2012 (2013 White Paper mindsets. Therefore, it is important to determine resi- on Crime in Korea, 2013). A variety of strategies, such as dents’ attitudes about the importance of walls in crime crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), prevention and to survey the opinions of burglars are being implemented to prevent such crimes. Natural regarding the role of walls in choosing targets. surveillance, one of the strategies included in CPTED, In this paper, we argue that there are diﬀerences in allows pedestrians and residents to naturally observe awareness of the eﬀects of wall removal between bur- their surroundings through the design of the environ- glars (Group 1) and non-residents who have not ment. Following this idea, wall removal is becoming removed walls (Group 2). We also determine whether increasingly popular in detached housing areas in Korea wall removal reduces the fear of crime by assessing the to secure clear views, which naturally improves surveil- opinions of residents (Group 3) who removed walls. lance. Kim and Park (2014) discovered that burglars tend Based on this investigation, we acknowledge that resi- to target houses with walls, and Choi (2006) revealed that dents’ mindsets about wall removal must be changed to surveillance is one of the most important factors when facilitate crime prevention. burglars choose targets. These outcomes support the hypothesis that natural surveillance enhancement is eﬀective for preventing crime. 2. Literature review There are many ways to prevent crimes in detached 2.1. Wall removal in Korea housing areas: enhancing patrols, installing security cameras and lights, and having double locks. If surveil- Due to rapid urbanization, the number of cars in Korea lance was enhanced by wall removal, it would increase has increased dramatically. However, detached housing the eﬀectiveness of crime prevention. However, the areas have insuﬃcient space to meet the demand for residents must be willing to remove walls. Most parking. Because of this, streets that should have been CONTACT Jina Park email@example.com Department of Urban Planning and Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group on behalf of the Architectural Institute of Japan, Architectural Institute of Korea and Architectural Society of China. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 265 used as pathways and places for communication have function, to divide territory, and an actual function, to been turned into parking lots. Lacking spaces for commu- protect privacy. Today, the actual function of the wall has nication and struggling to ﬁnd parking spaces, residents decreased, and the wall retains only the symbolic func- of detached housing communities come into conﬂict with tion of the territoriality (Figure 2). However, Koreans see each other. The Seoul Metropolitan Government walls as barriers that enhance privacy and protect from designed the Green Parking Project to address such pro- outside dangers. For this reason, homes without exterior blems and to improve living conditions. This project aims walls seem strange, and residents are reluctant to parti- to secure parking spaces by removing walls and opening cipate in wall removal programs. access to front yards. However, these changes only apply to residents who have signed up to remove the walls 2.2. Wall removal in relation to crime prevention around their houses. Roughly 2,700 households per year participated in this project from 2004 to 2011, while there Other than establishing a boundary and protecting are roughly 462,071 detached houses in Seoul (Seoul privacy, a wall also functions as a defensive measure. Metropolitan Government). This illustrates the low parti- However, the walls in a Korean residence are only cipation rate in wall removal initiatives (4.75%), despite about 1.5–2 m in height, which minimally impairs the the fact that wall removal could greatly improve living line of sight and can easily be traversed. Walls at this conditions. height create a space that is somewhere between To understand the reasons for the low participation being open and closed oﬀ, so the perception of such rate, it is necessary to understand the value of walls in walls as a defensive measure is mostly psychological Korean life. Walls have played important roles in Korean (Lee 1997). Taylor and Nee (1988) revealed that 71% of houses throughout history. Traditional Korean houses are burglars prefer to trespass by jumping over a wall. It is built following an open form, andﬂoor space is minimized also noteworthy that houses with walls can arouse to allow for bedrooms. Because many daily activities such criminal desires because, once inside the wall, burglars as laundry, cooking, washing, and housework were tradi- can easily observe the area outside the wall without tionally performed in the front yard, within the walls being seen by neighbors. Sorensen (2003) conﬁrmed (Figure 1), it is considered essential to have a wall to that burglars avoid targets that are readily observed by form a boundary around one’shousehold andprotect neighbors and/or passers-by. Places with high walls/ privacy. However, in modern Korea, the front yard more fences, low lighting at night, and thick trees or shrub- often functions as a hallway or a pathway from the front bery provide concealment opportunities, particularly gate to the inside of the house. when such obstacles are close to points of access The basic function of the wall is to set the boundaries such as windows and doors (Weisel 2002). Therefore, of the house. It also has the ability to defend buildings homeowners should consider crime prevention strate- and occupants and protect privacy. Other functions gies before the occurrence of a crime, and it is neces- include street space formation, climate control, space sary to increase the diﬃculty of committing a crime by division, moving line, and landscape formation. Walls increasing the risk of detection and ensuring that com- traditionally have two main functions: a symbolic mitting a crime is not proﬁtable. Figure 1. Traditional Korean house. 266 B. KIM AND J. PARK Figure 2. Modern Korean house (source: google.co.kr/maps/). Crime prevention through environment design Montoya, Junger, and Ongena (2016) studied day- (CPTED) is a method used to decrease the risk of and night-time residential burglaries and found that crime by altering the living environment. The early burglaries during the daytime are related to access theory of CPTED comes from Jane Jacobs who pre- control and territoriality. Speciﬁcally, having a front sented, in her book The Death and Life of Great garden was associated with lower daytime burglary. American Cities (1961), a solution to urban crime Visibility into the back garden and evidence indicating through environmental design. In 1971, C. Ray Jeﬀery the presence of a dog (i.e., surveillance) decreased the coined the term CPTED in a book of the same title, thus night-time burglary risk. Finally, oﬀender availability popularizing the term. The most multifactorial strategy was associated with large increases in burglary risk. of CPTED includes control of access, natural surveil- These ﬁndings suggest that territoriality and natural lance, and territoriality. Numerous studies of CPTED surveillance are important for crime prevention. This have indicated the validity of the eﬀects associated result of visibility factor also supports the eﬃcacy of with CPTED. Marzbali et al. (2016) validated a third- such strategies of CPTED. In contrast, Peeters and order CPTED scale through the partial least squares Beken (2017) found that the importance of surveillance approach in a residential environment. The results of was less signiﬁcant in the city because there are so exploratory and conﬁrmatory factor analyses estab- many people in urban environments that it is very lished a 28-item, eight-factor measure nested within diﬃcult to identify outsiders. the four main dimensions of CPTED, and that this scale Many previous studies have included comprehen- is valid and reliable. Sohn (2016) assessed the relation- sive analyses focusing on environmental factors con- ship between the built environment and residential sidered by burglars when planning to commit a crime. crime by applying the principles of CPTED at the neigh- Bennett and Wright (1984) found that burglars prefer borhood level and showed that the proportion of resi- places where neighbors cannot see them, easy access dential area, the average number of building stories, to a gate, and the presence of many valuables to steal. street density, intersection density, and bus stop Cromwell, Olson, and Avary (1991) conducted inter- density were signiﬁcantly related to residential crime views with 30 burglars and revealed that they are when the model controlled for median household inﬂuenced by features such as security alarms and income, population density, and distance of the door locks when selecting a target. Park (2006) discov- neighborhood from the closest police station. In gen- ered that burglars perform thorough inspections of the eral, the characteristics of burglarized houses were physical environment, including elements such as public territorial qualities such as openness and unoc- security cameras, before choosing a target. The general cupied appearance. In contrast, non-burglarized consensus is that burglars prefer empty houses (Coupe houses had salient secondary or primary territorial and Blake 2006; Cromwell, Olson, and Avary 1991; Nee characteristics such as territorial markers communicat- and Taylor 2000; Maguire and Bennett 1982; Wright ing privacy and individuality. Greater visual contact and Decker 1996), which they identify by studying with neighboring houses was a characteristic of non- lights, movements in the house, and cars parked out- burglarized houses. side (Snook, Dhami, and Kavanagh 2011). Houses that JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 267 have not been burglarized and that are located near tends to decrease. The results of a resident awareness robbed houses typically have fences and signs prohi- survey involving crime prevention initiatives such as biting public access or trespassing. Such houses tend wall removal showed that residents felt the town was to be located in areas that are easily visible to neigh- safe (55%) and were interested in town safety (67%) bors (Clare, Fernandez, and Morgan 2009). Diﬃcult (Hong and Bin 2017). access to entry has also been shown to be eﬀective These studies support the hypotheses that crime can for crime prevention. Burglars tend to avoid houses be prevented by wall removal, and that burglars con- with barriers to entry such as complicated locks sider environmental factors such as the presence of installed on windows or doors when there are other a wall when identifying targets. However, it is not houses with easier entry access (Bennett and Wright known if people in Group 2 of non-residents who have 1984; Cromwell, Olson, and Avary 1991; Maguire and not removed walls are aware of the eﬀects of wall Bennett 1982; Nee and Taylor 2000). Burglars choose removal. Therefore, in this study, we assessed the aware- easy targets because it shortens the time required to ness of Group 2 compared to Groups 1 comprised of commit crime and lowers the risk of getting caught. In burglars and 3 of residents who have removed walls and Korea, burglars consider the risk of being caught an are currently living in wall removal project areas. important factor when choosing a target (Lee and Kang 2009; Kim 2010). Crimes can also be prevented in part by changing the environmental design of 3. Methods houses, such as increasing window size (Park and 3.1. Participants and survey Shin 2006). Walls are important elements of houses. However, Three groups of subjects were studied in this research. walls can also cause fear. If the outer wall of a building Group 1 included burglars who were serving sentences in is high and borders a narrow alley, for example, it can prison. Group 2 was comprised of non-residents who cause fear of extreme closure (Oh and Song 2013). Wall have not removed walls and were unfamiliar with wall removal is a CPTED strategy that maximizes the use of removal. We assessed the awareness of crime prevention natural surveillance through the design of the physical due to wall removal in these two groups. This is to environment and inﬂuencing the activity of people, compare the positive and negative perceptions of crime while taking into consideration that burglars do not prevention eﬀectiveness of wall removal between two want to draw attention to themselves. Surveillance is groups. Group 3 is made up of residents who participated maximized through enhanced patrols and placement in wall removal projects. Questionnaires (Table 1)were of security cameras and lights (Lim 2009). From this created to survey the groups that included evaluations of perspective, wall removal can increase ease of surveil- environmental factors associated with houses and wall lance by removing physical barriers that interfere with removal. Additional questions related to wall removal sight. This acts as a threat to burglars by increasing and fear of crime were also included to compare the their likelihood of being detected. levelsof awarenessinGroups2and3.Groups1and2 Since wall removal projects were ﬁrst applied in were surveyed using questions regarding demographic Korea, several studies have examined the relationship characteristics (which used a nominal scale) and environ- between wall removal and crime rate. Based on the mental factors associated with houses and wall removal opinions of residents who have participated in wall (Likert-type ﬁve-point scale, 1 = disagree completely; removal projects, research has focused on wall removal 5 = agree completely). and crime prevention (Kim 2008;Kim,Kim,and Hwang Groups 1 and 2 answered questions regarding the 2011; Shin and Kim 2012; Kim and Park 2013). Kim and importance of factors related to wall removal when Park (2014) interviewed burglars and examined the rela- committing a crime. CPTED presents crime prevention tionships between ease of committing crime and pre- techniques through natural surveillance and physical sence or absence of a wall and found that burglars with access control by humans. And looking at the previous less criminal experience and those committing preme- studies on the burglary of South Korea, burglars con- ditated crimes prefer houses without outer walls. sider surveillance, accessibility, risk and proﬁtability A study assessing the number of crimes in a wall (Choi 2006; Kim 2010; Kim, Kim, and Kim 2010). In removal project area was previously conducted (Jung consideration of CPTED’s point of view and the situa- 2009). In that study, 338 individual wall removal pro- tion of burglars, suitable factors: “Height of the wall”, jects and 256 alley projects were analyzed to deter- “Ease of ﬂight after crime”, “Hiding spots”, “Surveillance mine the number of crimes according to number of by neighbors and pedestrians” were selected in walls removed. There were 93 criminal cases when detached houses. And also for questions regarding there were fewer than 5 wall removals, corresponding the ease of crime before and after wall removal, we to 63.7% of total residential burglaries. There were 34 showed respondents pictures of a single house and an crimes on a block with four to ten wall removal pro- alley, both with a wall and without a wall, and the jects (34.22%). As wall removal increases, crime density respondents selected the picture in which they 268 B. KIM AND J. PARK Table 1. Survey questions. Questions Category Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Measurement type Human characteristics Crime experience, Age Gender, Age Gender, Age - Is the height of the wall important when committing a crime? Elements of a wall that - Five-point scale (1 = disagree Is the ease of ﬂight afterward important when inﬂuence ease of crime completely; 5 = agree committing a crime? completely) Are hiding spots important when committing a crime? Is surveillance by neighbors and pedestrians important when committing a crime? Please select the location in which it is easier to commit a crime Single House with a wall House without a wall Wall removal - Selecting house Houses in Alley with walls Alley without walls an alley Fear of crime - Do you think the wall removal Fear of crime was Five-point scale eﬀective for reducing the fear decreased after wall of crime? removal believed a crime was more easily committed. These Korean Social Media. There is a time gap among the questions were prepared to try to think in the position data of the groups. Because the survey for burglars was of the burglar to ﬁnd what is diﬀerent thinking of rejected from prisons, this study uses the alternative trespassing on the house between the burglar and data of Group 1 and 3 from the authors’ previous normal people. For the question related to wall research and new survey data for Group 2. removal and fear of crime, we asked Group 3 if their “fear of crime was decreased after wall removal?” and 3.2. Analysis asked Group 2 if “wall removal is eﬀective to reduce the fear of crime?” using a ﬁve-point scale. The ques- To study awareness of the crime prevention beneﬁts of tion for group 2 is to ﬁnd out the eﬀect of people who wall removal, we performed three analyses. First, we do not live in the house on the reduction of crime fears performed a cross tabulation analysis by comparing the of wall removal. But the question for group 3 is opinions of Groups 1 and 2 regarding the ease of crime in whether people living in houses with walls removed houses with or without walls. Second, we used t-tests to would have reduced the fear of crime. The two ques- examine the awareness of the two groups with regard to tions have diﬀerent nuances. However, these ques- wall-related environmental factors when committing tions items were constructed in reality as closely as crimes. Last, we used t-tests to assess the awareness of possible in order to ﬁnd out the eﬀect of the wall Groups 2 and 3 with regard to the eﬀectiveness of wall removal felt by the residents and to compare the removal to reduce fear of crime. perceptions of the general public. To identify respondents for Group 1 (burglars), we contacted 24 prisons and ﬁve detention centers. 4. Results However, we were only able to survey prisoners incar- 4.1. Demographics of participants cerated for burglary in two of the prisons and none from the detention centers, as these inmates had not yet The 152 burglars in Group 1 were divided into the been found guilty. The survey was administered by following age groups: 20–30 (11.2%), 31–40 (30.9%), prison oﬃcers from July to August 2013, and 152 ques- 40–50 (26.3%), and over 51 (31.6%). The questionnaire tionnaires were returned. The survey of residents who for Group 1 did not include questions about gender had participated in wall removal projects was con- because the prisons in which we can get permission to ducted directly by the authors from July to survey accommodate man prisoners. The experiences of August 2012 and from January to February 2013 in the burglars were: ﬁrst-time oﬀenders (21.1%), two pre- Hong-eun-3-dong Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea. In this vious convictions (12.5%), three previous convictions neighborhood, a total of 72 houses had undergone wall (19.7%), and over four previous convictions (46.7%). Of removal. A researcher personally visited residents to the 130 people in Group 2, 50% were males and 50% conduct the survey. A total of 58 questionnaires was were females, and their age groups were: 20s (45.4%), returned by 72 houses. Group 2 was randomly selected 30s (21.5%), 40s (14.6%), and over 50 (18.5%). There through an online survey to survey the general public. were 58 residents (male = 60.3% and female = 39.7%) The survey of Group 2 was conducted from February to who performed wall removals in Group 3. The age March 2015 and 130 questionnaires were collected groups of the residents were: 20s (13.8%), 30s (3.4%), using Google online survey that was distributed on 40s (15.5%), 50s (31.0%), and over 60 (36.2%) (Table 2). JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 269 Table 2. Descriptive statistics. members of Group 2 chose the house with a wall as an Group Group Group easier target. This result was not statistically signiﬁcant. 1 2 3 Although the result was not statistically signiﬁcant, the Age (%) 20–30 (20s) 11.2 45.4 13.8 answers in Group 2 were diﬀerent for the two environ- 31–40 (30s) 30.9 21.5 3.4 41–50 (40s) 26.3 14.6 15.5 ments. In the case of a single house, 56 respondents Over 51 (over 50s) 31.6 18.5 67.2 thought that a wall made a crime easier to commit. Gender (%) Male 100 50 60.3 Female - 50 39.7 However, this number increased to 66 when considering Crime experience First-time oﬀenders 21.1 - - houses in an alley with all walls removed. This diﬀerence (%) Two previous convictions 12.5 reﬂects the belief that increased visibility due to wall Three previous 19.7 convictions removal would play a greater role in an alley than in Over four previous 46.7 a single house, as the neighbors in nearby houses convictions would be able to provide surveillance. Changing such environmental factors is eﬀective in preventing crime, as such changes can increase surveillance. The answers 4.2. Ease of crime in relation to the presence or of burglars were also diﬀerent for the two environments, absence of a wall with 83 responding that a wall made committing a crime The results of cross tabulation analysis were statistically easier in the context of a single house and 88 responding signiﬁcant. The awareness levels of Groups 1 and 2 with similarly for houses in an alley. This indicates that wall regard to the ease of crime in relation to the presence or removal in an alley was expected to be more eﬀective absence of a wall were diﬀerent. Table 3 shows eighty- than in a single house unit. three of the 152 burglars answered that a wall makes it Tables 3 and 4 results showed that Group 1 and 2 easier to commit a crime. However, in Group 2, only 56 have diﬀerent points of view about the wall when out of 130 respondents thought that way, and 74 committing a crime. The reasons for this are as follows: answered that houses without walls would be easier Group 2, a non-specialist in crime, has the precon- targets. This result is reﬂected in the belief of Group 2 ceived notion that the physical environment as the that a house with a wall is safer than a house without wall can protect the house from outside risk. one. In other words, respondents in Group 2 think that it However, group 1, criminal experts, believes that would be easier for a burglar to trespass when there is walls can be an aid to crime by blocking people’s no wall. In Group 1, 83 answered that a house with a wall eyes and providing a place to hide their bodies. This is an easier target, as the wall blocks surveillance from diﬀerence may be due to their experience and disposi- the outside and provides hiding spots. tion that burglars can commit crimes as safely as pos- Table 4 shows that eighty-eight of 152 burglars sible and prefer a safe environment from the risk (Lee answered that a house with a wall is easier to burgle, and Kang 2009; Lee and Kim 2010; Kim 2010). and 64 burglars answered that it would be more diﬃ- cult to commit a crime in an alley in which all walls 4.3. Considering the environment when facing the street had been removed. Sixty-six of 130 committing a crime CPTED presents crime prevention techniques through Table 3. Cross tabulation analysis in a scenario with a single natural surveillance and physical access control by house. humans. And looking at the previous studies on the Category burglary of South Korea, burglars consider surveillance, Wall removal in a single house Group 1 Group 2 Total χ (p) accessibility, risk and proﬁtability (Choi 2006; Kim 2010; Presence of wall Frequency 83 56 139 0.054* In category 54.6% 43.1% 49.3% (3.726) Kim, Kim, and Kim 2010). In consideration of CPTED’s Absence of wall Frequency 69 74 143 point of view and the situation of burglars, four suita- In category 45.4% 56.9% 50.7% Total Frequency 152 130 282 ble physical environmental factors were selected in Total 100% 100% 100% detached houses. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05 The height of the wall, ease of ﬂight after crime, hiding spots, and surveillance by neighbors and pedestrians are environmental factors related to walls that are considered Table 4. Cross tabulation analysis in the alley scenario. by burglars when choosing a target. In this study, we Category examined the levels of awareness in Groups 1 and 2 in Wall removal for houses in an alley Group 1 Group 2 Total χ (p) relation to important factors considered by burglars when Presence of wall Frequency 88 66 154 0.231 committing a burglary. We detected a gap between the In category 57.9% 50.8% 54.6% (1.435) average scores of the two groups (Table 5). Overall, Group Absence of wall Frequency 64 64 128 In category 42.1% 49.2% 45.4% 2 had a higher average score than Group 1 with regard to Total Frequency 152 130 282 environmental factors. This diﬀerence can be explained Total 100% 100% 100% by respondents thinking defensively, believing that Note. *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05 270 B. KIM AND J. PARK Table 5. Responses of Group 1 and Group 2 about the impor- Table 6. Responses of Group 2 and Group 3 with regard to tance of a wall. reduction in fear of crime. Standard Standard Average deviation Average deviation Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Category 1 2 1 2 tP Category 2 3 2 3 tP Height of the 2.93 3.50 1.26 1.08 −3.993 0.000** Reducing 2.75 3.44 1.26 1.21 −3.519 0.001** wall the fear of Ease of ﬂight 3.57 4.15 1.19 1.12 −4.142 0.000** crime after crime *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05 Hiding spots 3.25 3.19 1.16 1.18 0.412 0.681 Surveillance by 3.13 4.16 1.22 0.91 −8.112 0.000** neighbors and eﬀective way to reduce the fear of crime. These results pedestrians can be explained by the ﬁnding that people view walls *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05 as protective barriers against outside danger and therefore feel that wall removal will increase fear of burglars would carefully consider environmental factors crime. On the other hand, residents who had removed when committing a crime. However, the diﬀerence walls knew that the absence of a wall does not actually between the two groups in average scores regarding increase trespassing, and instead of that it increases hiding spots was not signiﬁcant. The average score of surveillance and reduces the fear of crime since their Group 2 was higher than 3.5 for all factors except hiding houses can be observed by neighbors. It should also be spots, which had a relatively low score of 3.19. Group 1 noted that awareness of the eﬀect of wall removal on considered hiding spots to be the second most important crime prevention among the general public is diﬀerent factor, followed by ease of ﬂight. from actual ﬁndings regarding crime prevention. These results indicate that Group 1 considered hiding spots to be important, as they deter surveillance and 5. Conclusion prevent detection. From this perspective, a wall can be considered an attractive element to burglars. Group 2 In this study, levels of awareness of the eﬀects of wall tends to overlook the signiﬁcance of hiding spots in the removal on crime prevention were analyzed to devise choice of a burglary target. Thus, these ﬁndings indicate strategies to encourage wall removal. We found that the that the general public downplays the importance of general public considers houses without walls to be hiding spots and the provision of more favorable crime easier targets, in contrast to the views of burglars, who targets when considering the eﬀects of a wall. preferred houses with walls. This diﬀerence can be explained by beliefs regarding the function of walls, with members of the general public viewing walls as 4.4. Wall removal and reduction in fear of crime protective barriers against outside danger and therefore We examined how wall removal reduces the fear of crime feelingthatitisdangerous nottohaveawall.Asaresult, in Groups 2 and 3. Fear of crime can be inﬂuenced by age Group 2 believed that wall removal does not reduce fear and gender among personal characteristics. Previous stu- of crime. However, Group 3, residents who had removed dies have found that male and female genders have walls, believed that wall removal was an eﬀective way to asigniﬁcant impact on fear of crime (Jo 2003;Lee 2010; reduce fear of crime. The most important negative factor Cho, Go, and Lee 2017). However, in thecaseofage,there associated with wall removal was invasion of privacy. are results that age has no eﬀects on fear of crime (Lim This negative stereotype hinders wall removal and low- and Lee 2011), has eﬀects (Cho, Go, and Lee 2017), or only ers the likelihood of participation. Therefore, it is neces- has eﬀects in a group of women (Jo 2003). Gender sary to increase awareness of the beneﬁts associated between Group 2 and 3 showed a similar distribution, with wall removal among the general public. but in terms of age, Group 3 is a higher age group than Currently, wall removal is recommended to improve Group 2. In the case of Group 2 and 3 samples of this the residential environment in Korea. However, with study, regression analysis results for age and reducing the spread of CPTED, wall removal is also receiving fear of crime variables (β = −0.004, P = 0.954) were not increased attention as a crime prevention strategy. signiﬁcant. Therefore, the reduction of fear of crime by Thus, studies examining wall removal and crime pre- age is excluded. vention are increasing. Previous studies of burglary The awareness levels of these two groups were focused on factors that burglars consider when com- analyzed using a t-test (Table 6). The average score of mitting a crime, and studies about the eﬀect of wall Group 2 was 2.75, which indicated that respondents in removal on crime prevention have focused on the fear this group believed that wall removal did not reduce of crime (Kim 2008; Kim, Kim, and Hwang 2011; Shin the fear of crime. However, in Group 3, residents who and Kim 2012; Kim and Park 2013). These studies had removed walls, the average score was 3.44, indi- demonstrated eﬀects of wall removal on crime preven- cating that this group thought of wall removal as an tion. Despite the associations between wall removal, JOURNAL OF ASIAN ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING ENGINEERING 271 improved residential environments, and crime preven- References tion, the general public still has doubts about remov- Bennett, T., and R. Wright. 1984. Burglars on Burglary: ing walls. In traditional Korean settings, most daily Prevention and the Oﬀender. Aldershot: Gower. activities are conducted in the front yard. Thus, walls Brantingham, P. L., and P. J. Brantingham. 1993. “Nodes, traditionally play a major role in protecting privacy, Paths and Edges: Considerations on the Complexity of Crime and the Physical Environment.” Journal of and people feel aversion to the removal of walls, Environmental Psychology 13 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1016/ despite changes in lifestyle in modern Korea. S0272-4944(05)80212-9. This study aims to address resistance to wall Cho, S., M. Go, and D. Lee. 2017. “A Study on Explanatory removal. We examined and compared the awareness Model for General Fear of Crime.” Journal of Korean of eﬀects of wall removal eﬀect among burglars, non- Criminological Association 11: 103–124. residents who have removed walls, and residents who Choi, E. 2006. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Paju, Gyeonggi-do: Korean Studies Information. removed walls. We present evidence that mindsets Clare, J., J. Fernandez, and F. Morgan. 2009. “Formal regarding wall removal should be changed, unlike pre- Evaluation of the Impact of Barriers and Connectors on vious studies. Thus, we present the following proposal Residential Burglars’ Macro-level Oﬀending Location to raise awareness of the beneﬁts of wall removal. First, Choices.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of the Seoul Metropolitan Government should include Criminology 42 (2): 139–158. doi:10.1375/acri.42.2.139. Coupe, T., and L. Blake. 2006. “Daylight and Darkness information about crime prevention in proposals for Targeting Strategies and the Risks of Being Seen at wall removal. Currently, wall removal is promoted as Residential Burglaries.” Criminology 44 (2): 431–464. a way to improve the residential environment by sup- doi:10.1111/crim.2006.44.issue-2. plying parking spaces. If the government promoted Cromwell, P. F., J. N. Olson, and D. W. Avary. 1991. Breaking wall removal to prevent crime, people might see the and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary. 8vols. issue in a diﬀerent light, which could help to raise Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hong, S., and H. Bin. 2017. “A Study on the Correlation awareness that a house without a wall is still protected between the Wall Removal and Crime Prevention through from crime. Second, the National Police Agency or Environmental Design considering Improvement of government should create educational programs to Residential Environment - Focusing on Sungdae Valley.” familiarize people with CPTED. Such programs would Journal of the Korean Society of Living Environmental demonstrate the importance of wall removal for crime System 24 (6): 858–864. doi:10.21086/ksles.2017.12.24.6.858. Jane, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. prevention. Further studies should examine the eﬀects New-York, NY: Vintage. of CPTED strategies in detached housing areas, as well Jo, E. 2003. “Sex Diﬀerences in the Fear of Crime.” Korean as the eﬀects of wall removal, using data about crime Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues 9: 1–21. and invasion of privacy. Jung, K. 2009. “A Study on the CPTED through Analysis on the Characteristics of Crime Occurrence -focused on the Cases in Guro-gu District, Seoul.” Police Science Review 5: 113–181. Kim, B., and J. Park. 2013. “Eﬀect of the Elements of Physical Disclosure statement Variation after Wall Removal Project in Detached Houses No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors. on the Natural Surveillance and Fear of Crime.” Journal of the Urban Design Institute of Korea 14: 119–130. Kim, B., and J. Park. 2014. “A Study on the Easiness of Crime according to the Presence or Absence of A Wall in the Funding Detached Housing Area: Focusing on the Burglars.” Journal of the Korean Urban Management Association 27: 51–69. This work is supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure Kim, D. 2010. “Research Survey on the Characteristics of Technology Advancement (KAIA) grant funded by the Burglaries: Focused on How to Utilize Private Security.” Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Grant Korean Security Science Review 22: 15–35. 20CTAP-C152030-02). This research was supported by a Kim, D., Y. Kim, and S. Kim. 2010. “A Study on Target Selection grant (Grant 20CTAP-C152030-02) from Land, Infrastructure of Burglars - Focused on Physical Environment Factors.” and Transportation R&D Program (Science Technology Journal of Korean Public Police and Security Studies 7 (1): Promotion Research Project) funded by Ministry of Land, 209–233. doi:10.25023/kapsa.7.1.201005.209. Infrastructure and Transport. Kim, S., J. Kim, and H. Hwang. 2011. “Analysis of Resident Consciousness regarding the Eﬀectiveness of the Wall Removal Project for Prevention of Crime.” Journal of the Notes on contributors Urban Design Institute of Korea 12: 5–20. Kim, Y. 2008. “Eﬀects on the Sense of Safety for Resident by the Byungsuk Kim is a Postgraduate Student in Ph.D. at the Wall Removal Project.” Master Diss., Yeonsei University. Department of Urban Planning, Hanyang University. His Lee, J., and M. Kang. 2009. “A Study on Repeat Burglary research focuses on environmental psychology by urban Victimization.” Korean Association of Public Safety and design. Criminal Justice Review 36: 197–224. Jina Park is a Professor at the Department Urban Planning Lee, K. 1997. “A Study on the Cognition Attitude of the and Engineering, Hanyang University. Her research focuses Residences Related to the Main-Gates and Fences of on urban design, urban commercial space, commercial resi- Contemporary Urban Dwellings.” Journal of Urban Studies 5: lience, and commercial gentriﬁcation. 115–122. 272 B. KIM AND J. PARK Lee, S. 2010. “Study of Factors Aﬀecting Fear of Crime among Park, S., and J. Shin. 2006. “A Study on the Correlation Populations: Focusing on Public and College Students.” between ‘Crime on the Road’ and ‘Visible Window Areas’ Korean Criminal Psychology Review 6: 165–188. in Residential Street.” Journal of the Architectural Institute Legal Research and Training Institute. 2013. White Paper on of Korea Planning & Design 22: 93–100. Crime 2013. Yongin, Gyeonggi-do: Legal Research and Peeters, M. P., and T. V. Beken. 2017. “The Relation of CPTED Training Institute Characteristics to the Risk of Residential Burglary in and Lim, J. 2009. Crime Prevention. Seoul: DAE YOUNG. outside the City Center of Ghent.” Applied Geography 86: 9. Lim, J., and D. Lee. 2011. “A Study on Factors Having Eﬀect on doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.012. Pangyo Citizens’ Fear of Crime - Focused on the Awareness Shin, J., and S. Kim. 2012. “The Inﬂuence of Securing Natural of CPTED.” Korean Police Studies Review 10: 175–196. Surveillance to Fear of Crimes by Creating Bond between Maguire, M., and T. Bennett. 1982. Burglary in a Dwelling: The Neighbors.” Korean Association of Public Safety and Oﬀence, the Oﬀender, and the Victim. London: Heinemann. Criminal Justice Review 48: 141–172. Marzbali, M. H., A. Abdullah, J. Ignatius, and M. J. M. Tilaki. Snook, B., M. K. Dhami, and J. M. Kavanagh. 2011. “Simply 2016. “Examining the Eﬀects of Crime Prevention through Criminal: Predicting Burglars’ Occupancy Decisions with Environmental Design (CPTED) on Residential Burglary.” a Simple Heuristic.” Law and Human Behavior 35 (4): International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 46: 316–326. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9238-0. 86–102. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2016.04.001. Sohn, D. W. 2016. “Residential Crimes and Neighbourhood Montoya, L., M. Junger, and Y. Ongena. 2016. “The Relation Built Environment: Assessing the Eﬀectiveness of Crime between Residential Property and Its Surroundings and Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED).” Day-and Night-time Residential Burglary.” Environment Cities 52: 86–93. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.023. and Behavior 48 (4): 515–549. doi:10.1177/001391651455 Sorensen, D. W. M. 2003. The Nature and Prevention of 1047. Residential Burglary: A Review of the International Nee, C., and M. Taylor. 2000. “Examining Burglars’ Target Literature with an Eye toward Prevention in Denmark. Selection: Interview, Experiment or Ethnomethodology?” Copenhagen: Justitsministeriet. Psychology, Crime and Law 6 (1): 45–59. doi:10.1080/ Taylor, M., and C. Nee. 1988. “The Role of Cues in Simulated 10683160008410831. Residential Burglary-A Preliminary Investigation.” The British Oh, K., and J. Song. 2013. “Physical Environmental Elements Journal of Criminology 28 (3): 396–403. doi:10.1093/oxford- in Alleys Causing Fear of Crime for Women - Focused on journals.bjc.a047736. the Redevelopment District.” Journal of Community Safety Weisel, D. L. 2002. Burglary of Single-family Houses. and Security by Environmental Design 4: 32–57. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Oﬃce of Park, H. 2006. “Defensible Parking Facilities for High-rise Community Oriented Policing Services. Housing: A Study of South Korea.” Doctoral Diss., Wright, R. T., and S. H. Decker. 1996. Burglars on the Job: University of Portsmouth. Streetlife and Residential Break-ins. Lebanon: UPNE.
Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering
– Taylor & Francis
Published: May 3, 2020
Keywords: Wall removal; CPTED; detached housing area; burglary; natural surveillance