Abstract: Experimental evidence about the relationship between outdoor lighting and crime was examined in Part 1 of this work. Although the presence of light tends to allay the fear of crime at night, the balance of evidence from relatively short-term field studies is that increased lighting is ineffective for preventing or deterring actual crime. In this second part, available evidence indicates that darkness inhibits crime, and that crime is more encouraged than deterred by outdoor lighting. A new hypothesis is developed accordingly. Additional quantitative evidence supports the hypothesis. Excessive outdoor lighting appears to facilitate some of the social factors that lead to crime. The proliferation of artificial outdoor lighting has been fostered with little regard for the environmental consequences of wasteful practice. Widely observed exponential increases in artificial skyglow indicate that the growth of outdoor lighting is unsustainable. The natural spectacle of the night sky has already been obliterated for much of the population of the developed world. Copious artificial light has transformed civilisation, but increasing knowledge of its adverse environmental, biological and cultural effects now justifies large overall reductions in outdoor ambient light at night as well as in its waste component. ‘Good’ lighting has to be redefined. Moderation of outdoor ambient light levels may reduce crime in due course, as well as limiting the adverse environmental effects. Lighting controls might provide a means of limiting urbanisation and urban sprawl. National crime prevention policies, laws, lighting standards, architectural use of light and urban planning practice appear in need of fundamental changes.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Fear of crime is associated with negative health and wellbeing outcomes, and may mediate some impacts of the built environment on public health. A range of environmental interventions have been hypothesized to reduce the fear of crime. METHODS: This review aimed to synthesize the literature on the effectiveness of interventions in the built environment to reduce the fear of crime. Systematic review methodology, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance, was used. Studies of environmental interventions which reported a fear of crime outcome and used any prospective evaluation design (randomized controlled trial (RCT), trial or uncontrolled before-and-after study) were included. Eighteen databases were searched. The Hamilton tool was used to assess quality. A narrative synthesis of findings was undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies were included, 22 controlled and 25 uncontrolled, with total sample sizes ranging from n = 52 to approximately n = 23,000. Thirty-six studies were conducted in the UK, ten studies in the USA and one study in the Netherlands. The quality of the evidence overall is low. There are some indications that home security improvements and non-crime-related environmental improvements may be effective for some fear of crime outcomes. There is little evidence that the following reduce fear of crime: street lighting improvements, closed-circuit television (CCTV), multi-component environmental crime prevention programs or regeneration programs. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence for the effectiveness of specific environmental interventions in reducing some indicators of fear of crime, but more attention to the context and possible confounders is needed in future evaluations of complex social interventions such as these.

Abstract: The major systematic review on street lighting and crime, Home Office Research Study 251, suggests that claims for the effectiveness of lighting against crime are justified. The review at first sight appears to be an appropriate statistical synthesis of all studies on street lighting and crime across the world. However on close examination, the statistical claims and methods are unfounded. In three cases examined there is a clear conflict between the evidence and the reviewers' interpretation of this. One of the principal problems is easily seen. The time-series of the original data from the Bristol study shows no good evidence for the crime reduction benefit of lighting. However the review gives the result for the same data as being extremely statistically significant. It is suggested that such a difference between the newly lit and the control areas occurring purely by chance is less than one in a billion, but this is manifestly wrong. Two other component studies, Birmingham and Dudley, are examined.