2018 David Lindner Research Prize...working across a diverse range of scales and typologies,...

2018 David Lindner Research Prize

Defensible SchoolsInvestigating alternative methods of

achieving a secure environment in schools

2 – 3 David Lindner Prize- Defensible schools

Contents

Chapter 1 How to use this report 06General purpose of study 08

Chapter 2:Literature review:CPTED Background 11CPTED in Australia 13CPTED in School 14Research Result 15Case Studies 16

Chapter 3:Design Strategies Planning & policies 23Physical Environment 24Landscaping 26Materiality and specification 29Maintenance and school policies 30

Chapter 3:Design Checklist Planning & policies 32Physical Environment 32Landscaping 33Materiality and specification 33Maintenance and school policies 33Summary of Conclusion 34

Appendix A: Questionnaire 36

Appendix B: Level of Privacy Table 37

Appendix C: Available Materials 38 References 39

CPTED in Australia 13

Increased prevalence of safety and security issues in public spaces changed the connection of the school to its surroundings in the last couple of decades in Australia. Visible security measures such as fences around the schools are becoming an ever more common feature of the urban landscape of the Australian schools. While some analysts and commentators emphasis on the necessity of such measures in light of the secured environment, others argue that this will create threat perceptions and undue anxiety by constantly reminding the students, teachers and the community of a presumed serious threat.

Currently, the use of the typical diplomat fence is almost the only option in providing security for schools, regardless of the site location and needs. If the site is located in the middle of Sydney CBD or in a quiet regional area of Victoria, the fences have no sense of place to the school surrounding and the neighbourhood. These fences, far away from being sustainable and connected to their own context, act as a barrier of movement and disconnect the building and the users from their environment.

This proposal aims to view the characteristics of a safe school and potential passive security design options for replacing the standardised approach for securing school boundaries. The result will help architects and designers to demonstrate the alternative ways to secure the schools and more importantly help the community and future generations in connecting to their surrounding environment.

Authur: Jamileh Jahangiri

Contact: [email protected]

Jamileh is a registered architect and sessional academic. She studied both in Iran and the University of Sydney with experience working across a diverse range of scales and typologies, including Cultural, Educational, Sports and Commercial projects with leading practices in both Sydney and Tehran. With a strong passion for creating Public spaces, her interest in architecture lies on social and cultural sustainability of built environment. She is committed to creating places that engage with its cultural and social values. This design ethos drives her to advocate for a sensitive architecture that promotes cultural identities to encourage social changes.

This report was funded by the 2018 David Lindner Prize which is awarded to emerging architects by the NSW Institute of Architects. The prize aims to inspire architects through research, to engage in important and challenging design issues involving the public realm. The prize is awarded annually, to an individual whose submission generates ideas for solving real challenges facing our cities, and contributes to the profession as well as the broader community.

David Lindner Prize- Defensible schools4 – 5

A good boundary design will give the

impression that your school is a user-

friendly but secure environment.

1• How to use the report

• General PurposeIn

trod

uctio

n


other than the current use of fences. The suggestions mentioned within this article are a mere representation of many possible ways to positively provide security for schools by an effective design as well as bringing aesthetic values. These recommendations need to be applied based on the local characters, location and context of the schools and would not be the ultimate solution as a recommendation that is preferred and useful for a school in a small quiet suburb as opposed to a busy school in Sydney CBD.

The defensible school is a guide for designing safe schools. It draws out the key findings and recommendations based on Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principal guidelines.

In the first and second chapters, the background and the reasons for this research are outlined as well as a review on passive security science. These chapters are useful for understanding the fundamental methods of achieving passive security and disguising the security elements.

Chapter three focuses on providing some planning and design suggestions that target the safety concerns of the policymakers with strategies

How to use This Report


A key element in the creation of a successful community is integrated educational services. Designing community facilities and infrastructures based on fear and isolation is not the best way to prevent crime. The architect and the city planner Oscar Newman argued that by using passive security, crime could to some extent be designed out. The passive security design is the prevention of crime by discouraging criminal activities. School security can be addressed actively or passively. Active security is based on locating security systems such as fences and bollards while passive security is based on program design, building configuration, and community participation. While no one has invented a full proof school design that eliminates all security concerns, facility planners can implement passive security measures to avoid potential trouble. The metal fences are not the only option to provide safety and avoiding vandalism in the context of school and public buildings. School security should be based on passive concepts with applied active strategies when necessary. There is a vital need for a learning environment design that increases the social contact rather than reducing or eliminating a neighbourhood where the community knows each other, and the intruders are visible. Passive security design will allow the community and children to use their surrounding environment with a strong sense of attachment and belonging, while adding a layer of privacy, security and protection. These types of security measures are also predominantly product less and are changing the climate of safety in the community by introducing a physical environment that has a positive influence on human behaviour. The idea of opening up the school is also helpful in crowded cities and suburbs to share space.

This Defensible School Research proposal aims to view the characteristic of a safe school and potential passive security design options for replacing the standardised approach for securing school boundaries. The result is aiming to:

Help architects and designers to demonstrate alternative ways to secure the schools

Help the community and future generation in connecting to their surrounding environment.

An attempt at introducing more discerning safety measures into the design and finding an alternative, more sustainable and pedagogical security around the school without creating a prison-like environment.

A reminder that it is super important to avoid creating a fortress society.

A contribution to the ongoing discourse on fencing schools as public domains and their impact on the urban fabric of cities in Australia.

A proposal to make the school grounds usable during the time it is not used by the school.

Make the intruder feel a sense of anxiety and discomfort in the space they do not belong and despite no physical force, remove themselves from the secure environment.

When the new schools were built in the 60s and 70s to accommodate children from the baby boom, educational facility planners didn’t have to consider safety as much as they do today. Faced with the perception that society is becoming increasingly disordered, by posing high-security metal fences, we are creating schools as privatized public spaces that insulate children from being involved with general public. As a result, the new generation of children is very unskilled in human relationships because so much of what needs to be learned cannot be learned only within the family or school context. They need to observe and learn about the varieties of human relatedness - about the nuances of social relationships, such as how people who know each other relate and how people relate who do not know each other but share a neighbourhood, a street or a public place with each other.

The vision of a civilian city that is walled off and fenced with No Trespassing signs not only looks ugly but surrealistic. While reducing the long-term maintenance and ensuring security for students is vital, this shouldn’t lead to creating a prison-like environment. In recent years, the primary consideration in

the planning and design of both public and private schools were making security fences without any connection to the site context and surroundings. Despite the fact that these fences do not necessarily create a foolproof safe environment for children, they are particularly the decision maker’s favourite as they are hard to climb or cut, low maintenance and can be seen through. Vandalism has a substantial effect on capital cost, appearance, running costs and maintenance of schools. Unfortunately, this method of securing the school is not the ultimate answer as it often:

Cuts the students off from the outside world

Isolates schools from the surrounding communities

Has no connection with the urban setting

Their endless, rigid appearance has visual distraction problems

Creates an imposing or negative impression of the school

Controls the access of people who follow the rules and burglars will path the fences anyway.

General Purpose of the Report


Background

The seminal ideas of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) can be traced back to 1961 and Jane Jacobs. In her book “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, she criticized modernistic urban planning that prevailed an insecure and negative atmosphere in the streets of North American cities.

• A safe city street for Jacobs must have three main qualities:

• A clear demarcation between what public space is and what private space is.

• There must be eyes of the belonging on the street

The area must have continuously used both, to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in buildings along the street, to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers.

She believed that social controls on public behaviour could operate in smaller settlements, if people know each other. She encouraged the mixed-use of space to allow for continuous use. In 1971, Ray C. Jeffery, used the term CPTED in a book with the same title for the first time, “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design”. He outlined the importance of public observation on decreasing the potential of crime in urban areas. However, the idea didn’t get the attention until the next year when the American architect and city planner Oscar Newman studied the prevalence of crime in his book of Defensible Space. He argued that creating defined areas of influence and introducing an environment that people have a sense of belonging and ownership, in combination with positioning the building with a better line of sight, in a way that fosters a ‘Defensible Space’, a safe and liveable place can be created. He suggested 5 criteria on surveillance, access control, territoriality, image and milieu.

Territoriality focuses on creating perceived areas of proprietary concern by clearly defining ownership of space using both symbolic and real barriers for the genuine user. The sense of ‘ownership’ is crucial to the success of CPTED. Environmental Criminologists Cozens et al (2005) pointed

out that territoriality can be achieved by ensuring all spaces have a specific and designated purpose. It includes symbolic barriers such as signage, subtle changes in road texture and real barriers including fences or design elements that clearly define and delineate private, semiprivate, and public spaces. The design of the space and the way people are behaving will give the impression that the abnormal user will be observed, stopped or apprehended (Peel CPTED Committee, 1994). Studies show that when neighbours are known and seen as supportive, fear is diminished even in areas with high statistical risk of crime, underlining the importance of the connection between strong communities, social capital, mutual trust, and feelings of safety and security. A socially cohesive community values diversity shares, a common vision and a sense of belonging and works to develop positive relationships between people from different backgrounds and culture. This is about the community setting up and participating in festivals, cultural events, youth clubs, and commemorating significant local community events and people.

Surveillance provides an opportunity for the owner of the space to observe the potential offender, by using the building configuration and the design and placement of windows and building entrances. Formal surveillance is often carried out by local stakeholders (Users of the space), whereas informal surveillance is performed by residents of a place (Hilborn, 2009). This is especially important for planning and building positions. Passive surveillance is the most powerful CPTED strategy when people are able to see what goes on, to respond in ways that will enhance their safety and the safety of the others.

In combination strategy of Surveillance and Territoriality, Target Hardening program includes both physical and psychological barriers. There is, however, much disagreement concerning whether or not target hardening should be considered as a component of CPTED as it focuses on denying or limiting access to a crime target through the use of physical barriers such as fences, gates, security doors, and locks. Fences were considered as one of the ways of achieving

a secured environment proposed in earlier studies of CPTED. Professor Jon Coaffee questions the impact of visible security measures on individual and group perceptions, examining whether they can make people feel vulnerable, alienated or excluded. His research is focused on terrorism and extremism, and his findings suggest that a fortress environment mirrors radical tendencies, while a sensitively built environment might help mediate them. Cozens et al. (2005) also warned that overuse of target hardening measures can lead to the development of a ‘‘fortress mentality’’, which is pointless once the criminal penetrates the system or if they are already a part of it. This can damage the self-policing capacity of the community and work against CPTED strategies that rely on surveillance, territoriality, image, and the legitimate use of space. Target hardening is often considered to be access control at a micro-scale (e.g., individual buildings) and according to the research by Taner et al, must be measured against the actual crime risk, before implementing. Hough et al(1980) Also added that if the crime is difficult to occur, the crime rate will fall. This might be an example of specifying materials that are hard to tear and get damaged. Vandal proofing the exposed material is one way to make the target hardening defence.

All CPTED strategies aim to create the perception of capable guardianship. An image of the place or maintenance, informs how the esthetical pleasantness of the environment can enhance the perceived safety of the area and keep potential criminals away because well-kept environments show that people are in control of the area. Conversely, lack of maintenance perceives as an indicator of a higher risk of victimisation regardless of what official crime statistics might say. A related subject to the Image concept would be the Situational approach in design by reducing the rewards of the crime or make it difficult or too risky to happen. Cohen and Felson suggested that lack of one of the three items including the motivated offender, suitable target and absence of suitable guardians again the violence would be sufficient to prevent the offence.

2• Background

• CPTED in Australia

• Research Result

• Case Studies

Literature Review


In 1997, Saville and Cleveland refined the CPTED ideas in the increased significance of social dimensions in what is known as second-generation community CPTED to capture the importance of social factors in providing a secure environment. The ideas extend beyond physical design and focus on social programs and community participation to promote self-policing by the community. According to them, the sense of ownership can help to create the idea of shared standards among different user groups (including gender perspective and people with special needs), while, in the third generation of CPTED, territoriality can be promoted by sharing real-time information about what is happening in the place and in the immediate surroundings. The criminologist, Timothy Crowe then argued that creating the environment that affects the behaviour of the users can reduce the crime and the fear of the crime. He puts 9 CPTED strategies that are identified and elaborated as follows:

1. Provide clear border definition of controlled space: This strategy can be established by the use of environmental cues that will affect the behaviour of users and displace users that are not supposed to be there.

2. Provide clearly marked transitional zones: Involves clear demarcation as to when one transits different zones, such as from public to private. The user of space must be able to determine that they have transited into another zone that may be under control by the legitimate owners of the space.

3. Relocation of gathering areas: Suggests the need to locate gathering areas in locations that have some form of natural surveillance and access control.

4. Place safe activities in unsafe locations: Safe activities according to Crowe, are those activities that have users that display controlling behaviours such as staring which make abnormal users feel they are being noticed if they intend to offend.

5. Place unsafe activities in safe locations: Involves placing activities that are unsafe near places where there is plentiful natural surveillance and high access control so the users feel safe.

6. Redesignate the use of space to provide natural barriers: Involves separating conflicting

activities that may be disruptive or fear-producing. This can be achieved by natural barriers such as distance between the spaces and use of other materials that may function as a natural barrier.

7. Improve scheduling of space: Suggests that improved scheduling of space can result in a reduction of risk among users and increase the perception of risk for abnormal users. The scheduling of space helps to create an environment where it is possible to have control over the behaviour among users.

8. Redesign or revamp space to increase the perception of natural surveillance: It is more effective to create spaces that have natural surveillance through natural techniques such as windows and clear lines of sight, to make a user feel like they are being observed than to use physical methods such as fences.

9. Overcome distance and isolation: Suggests that an effective design alongside good communication helps one to perceive that they have immediate access to help.

When successfully adopted, these strategies have been shown to reduce opportunities to commit a crime and increase perceived sensations of safety. The CPTED experience demonstrates that a balance needs to be found between overtly prescriptive design guidelines and the extreme need for planning to consistently appreciate context with all of its complexity.

The NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (former Department of Urban Affairs and Planning) introduced Crime Prevention Legislative Guidelines to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. These guidelines require consent authorities to ensure that development provides safety and security to users and the community. The Safer by Design program commenced in NSW in the early 1990s. The program supported by the police and the private security and insurance industries, meshed with the terrorism agenda, is a co-operative initiative involving the NSW Police, local councils, government departments and key private sector organisations. However, the guideline seems to focus mainly on early studies of CPTED and is not considering the second-generation community CPTED as much.

The fear of crime and concerns about safety and security are increasing in Australia. This along with the growing levels of distrust and continuous maintenance costs are key issues for policymakers. The findings of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, in 2018 confirms that crime across most of NSW has remained stable or fallen over the last years. However, the research on public perceptions of crime risk in Australia by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has shown that Australians greatly exaggerate the risks associated with most major categories of crime. Research shows that although the risk of break and enter in any twelve-month period is generally less than six per cent, 27 per cent of those surveyed judged their risk of break and enter in the next twelve months to be greater than 30 per cent. According to the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the public opinion about law and order, sometimes has a major influence on government policy and spending priorities.

Anja Dalgaard-Nielsen et al in research on the impact on the feelings of safety and security of Danish citizens argue that if the media along with the politicians would sensationalist less the fear and avoid outbidding each other in appearing tough on terrorism, the culture of paranoia and fear mode would reduce.It is known that the fear will facilitate the political control and manipulation of citizens. Unfortunately, these cultures lead to the architecture of fear as a new form of

design in public spaces. Although most of these design measures are short-term and are highly sceptical to achieve the desired objective, creating isolation and spreading fear instead of educating the public to avoid crime causing us to reflect and rethink these new methods of design. Some studies at the University of Florida show that creating visible security in comparison to passive security will increase the feeling of insecurity in users. The study indicated that the visible security measures and armed guards in particular, as opposed to the less visible, provoked feelings of suspiciousness and tenseness. Rooney, one of the Australian Catholic University’s early childhood education researchers also suggests, the sense of normalcy of fence reflecting back to the community the patterns of fear, insecurity and over-protection. Active security is more readily visible and more in line with what most people think of as traditional security. Examples include spiked gates, high fences, barbed wire, metal detectors, security cameras, and armed security patrols.

CPTED in Australia

Over securing school while landscape and topography already provides separation and access control


Based on the literature review, we can begin to understand how designers and planners could play a role in creating not only a safer school environment but a

place to raise citizens of the future, promote participation, facilitate critical thinking and ultimately create settings that community and children can experience a

better public realm. There are many ways to achieve the secured boundary design depending on the site location, culture and social organisation. The findings

suggest that no individual typology can be introduced. Even if protective measures do not cause fear, they should never be applied uncritically. Each school represents

a unique mix of histories, cultures, attitudes and expectations, physical and social realities, protective factors and risks that need to be considered within their own case. Appropriate security plan for one school may not be applicable to another

and considering that the solution for security is affecting two different groups including the children and the community.

It is important to study each side of the school building, east, north, west & south separately and ask questions to determine the required security levels. In addition,

it is also necessary to consider the range of activities schools offer including if it is a primary or secondary school, as they have different functions and needs. For example, a space for social interaction between students and the community for

senior students who need to exercise their increasing independence, will help the students to develop a healthy personality, a greater degree of self-awareness and a tolerance and understanding of others. By marking out boundaries clearly, residents

would feel a sense of ownership over places, encouraging them to look after their patch and discouraging strangers and opportunistic criminals from entering,

therefore, creating a safe haven.

The starting point for creating a secure school environment is a crime risk assessment which can be carried out for the school development. Refer to

Appendix A for some questionnaire examples by the American model of measuring the safety needs of the school. The crime risk assessment will indicate where

additional security measures are necessary. If the surrounding neighbourhood has a high crime rate, which correlates with greater risks for students approaching or leaving the school. This will impact the design, if the school is close to a safe or

unsafe activity area. This means that in higher crime areas security around schools is much greater, creating schools which have a militarized feel to them. Higher crime

areas tend to be poor or to have pockets of poverty.

The primary goal is to have a well-coordinated boundary edge for schools that is considerate of its surrounding and the community’s need to provide an inspiring and healthy environment that promotes learning. Failing to do so puts children’s

education, emotional development and pro-social behaviour at risk. If children are expected to be agents of change, interaction, innovation, democracy and have a

catalytic role in their communities, reductionist and repressive approaches toward children have to be abandoned and replaced by more freedom.

Research Result

As the study with a focus on the impact of fence on schools is limited, the research study focused on the studies that emphasis on crime prevention and passive security. However, it is clear that no previous research has investigated if the introduction of the fences reduces vandalism or increases student safety. The American architect-criminologist Randy suggests five key principles for planning safe and secure schools including Planning & Policies, Physical Environment (building organisation, Point of entry, interior space, System and equipment and community context), Site design (Landscape, exterior pedestrian routes, Vehicular routes), Materiality and Maintenance policy. These methods are targeting the reduction of Preventive measures to dramatically decrease the crime opportunities and finding specific solutions that are adaptive to its environment and it’s flexible to the user and climate. The university campuses are very interesting examples of this type of design. The student feels free to go around and do not ask for permission to walk around the campus, but the visitors or new student feel the impression that someone is looking at them.

One part CPTED related to school design is the idea behind the participatory design is to systematically combine interdisciplinary theory and application, and involve the people in the planning and design phases of their surroundings. In addition to the benefits of people having the chance to actively take part instead of passively accept what they are given, this process plays the important role of giving people that feeling of having been listened to. Thus, the planning activity itself becomes a learning process for both the designers and the inhabitant’s proposal for dissolving the isolation from urban life and culture that children face and integrate them to an active everyday life as members of the society.

According to the GANSW design Guide for schools, the learning environments should be designed to respond to and enhance the positive qualities of their setting, landscape and heritage. The aim is that the school better fits its place and ultimately provide a benefit to the community.

There are several cases within current schools around Australia with low fences and sometimes no fences which won’t create any threat to children.

CPTED in Schools


School group : H igh school

Secur ity level required around the school : h igh Risk

The school is arranged in a C shape around a courtyard, with teaching spaces located in the middle of the plan and the arms at either end containing a canteen and an indoor sports court . The key methods of passive design include:

Terr i tory : External ly, the school was designed to have both a publ ic , "urban" presence and a pr ivate one, with the facade treatment changing to deal with this.

Survei l lance: Provided t imber steps with large windows giv ing survei l lance across the external space and internal Courtyard for both students and staf f.

Access Control : Bui lding designed facing inwards to the courtyard l imits access to the school

Akademeia School in Poland Architect: Medusa Group

School group : Pr imar y school

Secur ity level required around the school : Low r isk

The school invites the city into the school and connects the school with the city whi le ut i l iz ing the harbour locat ion by using the water as an extra classroom. The key methods of passive design include:

Terr i tory : The project functions both as a school and a cultural gathering point . To create an exchange between the school , the neighbourhood and the harbour, the ground f loor features a combinat ion of a schoolyard and a city square.

Survei l lance: Open plan of the school creates an opportunity for survei l lance in each corner

Access Control : school functions design by having a natural hierarchy of publ ic , semi-publ ic and more pr ivate spaces from bottom to top.

South Harbor School in DenmarkArchitect: JJW Arkitekter


School group : Pr imar y school

Secur ity level required around the school : w ith in the inner urban context

On a compact inner urban site of 5000m2, the school is located in the Fishermans Bend Urban Renewal Area which is growing by 3000 residents per year. The project demonstrates forward planning of community infrastructure by local and state governments, with the shared faci l i t ies forming a mutual ly support ing complex of excel lent and wide-ranging services for an emerging local community. The key methods of passive design include:

Terr i tory : The notion of a “hard” border between the school and i ts surrounding area was dropped in order to create a publ ic faci l i t y that would invite the community in .

Access Control : school functions design by having a natural hierarchy of publ ic and more pr ivate spaces on top

South Melbourne School in AustraliaArchitect: Hayball

School group : H igh school

Secur ity level required around the school : h igh Risk

Located in one of the toughest areas in South Central Los Angeles this new publ ic charter high school for 630 students is v isual ly open but ent irely secured. The area was a central trouble spot during the 1964 Watts and the 1992 Rodney King Riots. Fair Housing and school bussing have plagued the area since the ear ly ’60s where median fami ly income is less than $35,000/year and 25% of the populat ion l ives below the poverty level . The key methods of passive design include:

Terr i tory : Open-air l ight-f i l led hal ls and classrooms, as wel l as the bui lding transparency, express the school ’s values and provide a healthy, sustainable learning environment .

Survei l lance: The perforated anodized aluminium façade panels provide an opportunity of survei l lance from al l around the corner

Access Control : 20-foot high perforated bul let resistant metal wal ls that are integrated into the bui lding design.

Image: Perforated metal specif ied is hard to tear mater ial that l imits the possible damage

South Los Angeles high school in USAArchitect: Brooks + Scarpa


3Planning & policies

Physical Environment

Landscaping

Materiality and specification:

Maintenance and school policies

Summary of Suggestions

Strategy Suggestion

SOUTH HARBOUR SCHOOL BY JJWFOCUSES ON INTEGRATION WITH THESURROUNDINGS WITHSCHOOL AREA BEING APART OF THE CENTRALPUBLIC AREA


A well-developed community/school integration requires careful planning to ensure that facilities are appropriate both to school and the community’s need. Crimes against people and property are less likely to occur if other people are around. Also, research shows, usually involving the community in the school including family support centres or adult literacy classes or any activities that build bridges to the community will extend the safety. Evaluating the school site begins in a close look at the environment in which it is placed. Typically, neighbourhood and community problems spill over directly into the school setting. Conditions noted during the school community evolution of the community will give school officials helpful clues as they seek to make both school and the neighbourhood safe. There is no point in introducing safety and security elements against when the community research shows no evidence of such activities in the neighbourhood. Site observations, social aspects, crime mapping of police recorded data and the history of criminal activity and interviews with selected users and municipal stakeholders underpin the methodology used in this study. Alternatively, the stakeholders can introduce the School safety Crime assessment tools prior to deciding on the level of security for each school. To create such tools, a question list can be handed to the group to assess risk rating factors for school safety and violence, for the community and users to identify the extent of each factor in the school and the neighbourhood. Refer to appendix A for the sample questionnaire example. This questionnaire needs to be modified to suit the school and the area’s needs. The 4 CPTED guideline in planning and policy making can be achieved through:

Pla

nnin

g an

d P

olic

ies

The Suggestions outlines in this chapter consider the CPTED School design suggestions outlined by Randy including Planning & Policies, Physical Environment, Landscaping, Materiality and Maintenance policy and combines them with the key principles of CPTED design strategies including territoriality, Surveillance, Access Control and Image. Each of the 5 categories below would suggest the alternative methods of achieving a secure environment in light of 4 CPTED guidelines for schools. Overall, the research does not eliminate the use of fences around the school boundary. In some cases, it may make sense to protect special natural habitats, schools and similar places.

Strategy Suggestion

Territoriality - Locate schools in a network of safe, traffic-free places that

allow children to explore their neighbourhood. - Introduce land-use mix/activities around the school area - Study shows that school uniforms are a very powerful tool for

establishing territoriality. - The school must not alienate the local community so as

not to withdraw their engagement or support. Engage the community including engaging the neighbours to report any suspicious actions around schools. The interface between authorities and citizens creates a sense of belonging, which can also help to improve the image of the school.

- School to be the centre of community activity which will encourage a level of shared responsibility through a feeling of combined ownership of the built environment. A strong sense of community can encourage the neighbourhood to adopt positive outlooks and behaviours, including self-policing. The focus was to Increasing positive acceptance and self-awareness of cultural identity and

- Strengthening interpersonal connections - Building educational attainment and economic participation - Improving characteristics of the neighbourhood - Strengthening social cohesion - Increased levels of social cohesion and informal social

control produce positive esteem and place attachment, which thereby may result in a better-maintained school. Community involvement ranges from merely offering school’s facilities for community use after school hours to involving the community in the design of the school itself and giving them sole use and control of part of it. Schools need to be functionally integrated into the community and not seen as a fortified island by the community at large. Facilities that are excellent category to share between school and community and they are satisfactory if independence access get available are including Library, Performing art spaces, Preschool, before and after school care, Halls and gymnasiums, Trade training between colleges and high schools, Film showing, Religious services, Public meetings and club activities. This sharing facilities with the community will broaden the government expenditure on capital infrastructure.

- Teenager have access to play areas after school, they feel it’s their place, and they feel a sense of belonging.

- Where possible motivate children to build the street boundaries according to the everyday needs, to make it a learning experience. Through this children learn how to measure a site, understand their surroundings, how to determine qualities and so on.

Surveillance - Raise public awareness - Schools to have at least three sides active

frontage to provide natural surveillance. - Putting the school site down the hill, which

makes it overlooked by surrounding houses, making it difficalt to tempt burglars and vandals.

- Locate shops and businesses on lower floors and residences on the upper floors. In this way, residents can observe the businesses after hours while the residences can be observed by the businesses during business hours.

- Adding more mix-use that attracts public to the surrounding sites, adds to the number of eyes on school. It is important that other people are able to see what is happening. An open line of sight surrounding the school such as workers at coffee places and mothers with a pram can help to enhance natural surveillance.

- The sidewalk must have users on it fairly continuously, both to add to the number of effective eyes on the street and to induce the people in buildings along the street to watch the sidewalks in sufficient numbers.

- Break the area if it is too large to supervise such as reducing the site areas.

- Increase community use after hours and to enhance surveillance after hours.

Access control - The site planning of a school should take

advantage of any physical or natural barrier that is existing

Image - Impoverished and disorganised neighbourhoods

are a greater likelihood that the school experiences social disorder.

Pla

nnin

g &

pol

icie

s

Mat

eria

lity

and

spe

cific

atio

n

Phy

sica

l Env

ironm

ent

Land

scap

ing

Mai

ntan

ance

and

sch

ool p

olic

ies


As per Crowe, the physical environment can be manipulated to produce behavioural effects that will reduce the incident and fear of the crime. Establish security requirements early to ensure any required secure lines can be designed and integrated with built form. The built form should respond to the existing or desired future context, particularly, positive elements from the site, have a positive impact on the quality and sense of identity of the neighbourhood, respect and respond to its physical context, neighbourhood character, streetscape quality and heritage and its natural environment including scenic value, local landscape setting and orientation improves the amenity within school grounds and for uses adjacent to the school. The 4 CPTED guideline in Physical Environment making can be achieved through:

Phy

sica

l Env

ironm

ent

Access control - Avoid environment design which is difficult to

clean and prone to damage. The building designs should minimise damage and the need for undue maintenance, without undermining the aesthetic and functional qualities

- The buildings on a street should be equipped to handle strangers

- Avoid useless windows in student stores, administration storage offices, and industrial arts storage areas.

Image - The interconnected plan enables easy legibility

of the building for users and visitors, better management and supervision and most importantly, very convenient internal access and communication.

- Design the environment in ways that allow people in it to easily know where they are and know how to get where they are going.

- Simplify the approach and entry to the buildings to reduce ambiguity and confusion.

- Limit the number of buildings to limit access inside the building.

- Using the school building as the school perimeter creates a central courtyard in the middle which minimise the security issue.

- By going high-rise, the number of the access point will be limited.

- Cluster after-hours activities within the same area to control and monitor after-hours access to buildings and facilities.

- The buildings have been designed so that the important and appropriate routes can be seen and easily accessed.

- Inclusion of landmarks within the school environment will aid wayfinding and clearance of entry points

- Incorporate wayfinding including signage, maps, building names and room numbers with in the form.

- Utilize change in levels and built form to delineate school boundaries without excessive need to fence and gates

- Eliminate design features that provide unauthorised access through the roof and above levels

- The design of the building can enable the flexibility to separate a multi-function space at the front of the building for weekend workshops whilst giving security to the rest of the building.

- Access to the new building can be controlled by the administration area.

- If not creating blind spots, the building entries can be recessed and close the accessibility when is not in use.

- Doors can be designed to clear from the distance that the school is closed.

- Ensure skylights or roof tiles cannot be readily removed or opened from outside.

Territoriality - The buildings are designed to promote a sense

of pride in the community. - Breaking the school grounds to the zone will

create a more sense of territoriality as well as create more surveillance for each group users. School can be zoned for access control to Access types including students, community, staff, teachers, parents, after-hours care, strangers and potential harm and create place identity and a sense of shared standards among different groups of users. Refer to Appendix B for the level of privacy required for each area. There must be a clear demarcation on zones of separation between classroom areas and spaces open to the community.

- The entry should be a place itself, should be inviting and contain that children can interact.

- Creating specific school theme on buildings and entry point.

- The building must be designed to be inviting when the school is open and to express the fact that the school is tightly shut after school hours, evenings & the weekend.

- Each floor must have signs that inform of the activity they are in, as well as all entry and exit points of that floor (such as elevators and stairs)

Surveillance - Areas with a high opportunity to observe their surrounding usually makes one feel

safer in that given site and due to the increased visibility and the risk of being seen, the would-be offender would be discouraged.

- Separate conflicting activities that may be disruptive or fear to produce (mix of younger pupils from the older student in Community schools is one example) by creating a natural barrier such as distance between the spaces and use of other materials that may function as a natural barrier.

- Breaking the site to zones will improve the supervision if an area is too large. Create a transitional zones going from public space to semi-public space, semiprivate space, to private space. The public space might be the site premier or exterior play area, semi-public such as the library or the gymnasium, semi-private such as admin area and vestibule and private like classrooms and toilets.

- Maximize the line of sight within the building shape. The built environment should be designed to reduce or limit risk from assault by providing active and overlooked places

- Avoid dark or hidden alcoves and - Limit places of concealment which prevent surveillance and limit choices. The building

form should create large open spaces in between yet eliminate isolated spots, blind corners and increase natural surveillance by student and teachers.

- When the configuration of a building demands a blind spot, corners can be tapered at 45 to allow a view around a corner to avoid an ambush situation.

- The design should focus on positioning the school office as the main entry point to the school.

- The placement of buildings can work as a source of monitoring while improving social ties among the community and school.

- Maximises student flow paths and visual surveillance in and around the buildings - Entrances should be at prominent positions. - Waiting areas and entries to elevators/stairwells should be close to areas of active

uses and should be visible from the building entry. - The incorporation of large glass frontages and windows enables visual contact from

inside to outside and vice versa. - Transparency throughout the centre enables great visibility and the ability for

supervision. - The general office and principal’s office overlook the front of the school and the entry. - Place unsafe activities such as amenities in or near safe locations or near high refuge

areas such as reception areas and the social centres. - When considering open-access schools, various location of the supervision may

be considered as either the school administration and control group centrally or dispersing them through the school campus. For example, the deputy and senior staff offices to be near the main entries and locating the teacher’s areas near the general learning areas to supervise the areas better.

- The use of extensive glass in the office to create an extensive unobstructed view of the school grounds.

- Position active uses or habitable rooms with windows adjacent to main communal/ public areas (eg playgrounds, swimming pools, gardens, car parks).

- Communal areas and utilities (eg Library and Hall) should be easily seen. - Where elevators or stairwells are provided, open style or transparent materials are

encouraged on doors and/or walls of elevators/ stairwells. - All parking areas are to be positioned a minimum distance of 3 metres from any

building and should be positioned to facilitate surveillance from the units.


Land

scap

ing

Surveillance - Encourage landscaping that promotes “high prospect” and “low refuge”. - Design to provide maximum supervision with minimum personnel. - The main circulation path to school should be open and visible. - Eliminate hidden corners and blind spots that provide opportunities for unforeseen

crime and limit interrupted sightlines. - Include new access points at street frontage to create better levels of active and

passive surveillance during both day and night times. - Introduce other activities such as outdoor learning, gathering spaces and play spaces

along important routes to augment activity and surveillance - Design entrances to allow users to see in before entering. - Avoid a large number of car parks. Limit the area of the car park outside peak hours. - Locate car parks in areas that can be observed by adjoining uses. Locate disabled

parking spaces in highly visible and convenient areas - The central courtyard should be visible from the circulation walkways - Hangout areas are places next to formal and informal play places and near active

walkways, where people sit to watch games, to be seen by others passing by, and to talk to one another.

- Reduce the effects of shadows by improving the lighting system - Lighting should have a wide beam of illumination, which reaches to the beam of the

next light, or the perimeter of the site or area being traversed. - Avoid lighting spillage onto neighbouring properties as this can cause nuisance and

reduce opportunities. Direct these lights towards access/egress routes to illuminate potential offenders, rather than towards buildings or resident observation points.

- Exclude closed tunnels and bridges which limit surveillance - Locate ‘drop off’ zone to the school entrance gate invisible and close to the school

main entrance. - Avoid sudden changes of gradient that reduce visibility. - Consider the installation of mirrors to allow users to see ahead of them and around

corners. - Access to lifts, stairwells and pedestrian pathways should be visible. - Install glass panels in stairwells where possible - Seating should be located in areas of active use. - Avoid planting where impacting the observation and create obscure areas. - Limit mass landscaping to reduce hiding spots and choose plant species that allow

clear undisturbed vision above 1m and below 3m. Avoid medium-height vegetation with concentrated top to bottom foliage. Plants such as low hedges and shrubs (1 - 1.2m high), creepers, ground covers or high canopied vegetation are good for natural surveillance.

- Trees with dense low growth foliage should be spaced or have the crown raised to avoid a continuous barrier.

- Use low ground cover or high canopied trees, clean trunked to a height of 2m around children's play areas, car parks and along pedestrian pathways.

- Avoid vegetation that conceals the building entrance from the street.

Landscaping denotes school boundaries, establishes natural observation areas by clearly defining buildings and site. There should be a difference between a school near a busy road or rail corridor and a school near the heritage bushland. In the inner suburban areas, students need more play area than those in locations where there is a greater amount of open spaces available for the students. Any proposal should use built and landscape features like planting, changes of material and texture, shelter, changes of level, artwork, signage, low walls, seating and the like, to define desired movement areas and delineate borders. Factors that may influence the site boundary design selection includes a pedestrian system that may exist or could be developed to create a safe site, the traffic circulation and the level of traffic, views in and out of the site. Unattractive views on-site might need screening, proximity to noise, the relationship between the site and any or existing reserve. More importantly, the physical built environment and landscaping need to be considered hand to hand and proposed a united response to the site. The 4 CPTED guideline in Site design can be achieved through:

Territoriality - Distinguish public, semi-public, and private spaces from one another through

physical features, such as signage, flower beds, pavement treatments, landscaping, archways, entry posts and student artworks will make it easy to identify and deal with trespassers, especially when special events are held. Change of pigmentation of public street walkways when crossing from public to semi-public would create a psychological deterrent school logos.

- A clear sense of boundary can be created planting and signage or level changes. Planting can be used to make a clear but permeable separation. The height and density can determine visual privacy with smallest plants capable of defining an edge.

- Designing natural barriers such as pavement textures helps to create boundaries without the need for gates.

- A lot of recreation in school open spaces takes place during after school or on weekends. Children or teenagers gather around the school for informal games of handball, basketball, soccer, or cricket. These games generally require minimal equipment which participants bring from home, a hardground surface large enough for throwing the ball.

- The view from and out of the site should be visually attractive as possible. - Solid wayfinding designed for pedestrians serves as the most effective deterrent to

individuals that define a hierarchy of increasingly private zones from Public Street to the school. Refer to Appendix B for the level of the hierarchy.

- In a suburban setting, the public and private spaces can ooze into each other - In a rural and suburban setting, creating continuity between the play yard and

adjacent open greenbelt, park or farm area will add to the feeling of spaciousness - Provide appropriate signs to indicate ‘‘who can use what and when’’ - Short fences can help to define ownership of a given territory. - Provide school frontages and entrances that are visible, engaging and welcoming - While adults usually prefer to be visually and aurally buffered from street traffic,

children often find much to enjoy in the busy movement. - Sign sending visitors to the office should be accompanied by site maps and arrows.

Without them, intruders will feel empowered to wonder the campus while looking for the office.

- Street numbers should be at least 7cm high and positioned between 0.6m and 1.5m above ground level on the street frontage.

- Use planting as a transition from the scale of the street to the pedestrian scale of school.

- If the security of the site is not high and the metal fence is necessary or the fences are already in place, climbing plants, trees and flowers can be introduced to soften its effect.

- Use of raised gardens, pot plants as a boundary between school and surroundings that can be used as a tool for a learning experience for pupils as well as adding a pleasant green soft element to the school and environment.

- Hostile vegetation and thorny groundcover or bushes can be “used effectively to define boundaries of various kinds around and within school property


Boundary edges as a part of the school should convey the school message through scale, material, sequence and the view. Because all of the available material, design approach and product will come with positive and negative impact, the use of each item, should be thoughtfully weighed and carefully positioned while reduces the vandalism. Also, a reduction in vandalism through careful selection of materials will contribute to beautifying and maintaining an area and will reduce expenditure on unscheduled maintenance. The main item always evaluates the level of security to deter, detect, delay, and deny intruders offered by specified material and consider that in selecting materials and finishes in schools. It is necessary to consider the unique range of activities and environment that the site is located in. Each material can be compared in a table similar to Appendix C. The 4 CPTED guideline in Materiality can be achieved through:

Territoriality - Identify the texture and typology of the streetscape. - Use integrated security features. - Define boundary borders, sightlines and all formal and

informal gathering areas. - Signs should be large and legible, identifiable as such at a

distance of 20m. - Signs should indicate paths through the use of colours,

depicting distance and the on-foot estimated time - The material and finishes to wear, tear and vandalism needs

to be balanced against qualities such as warmth, comfort and pleasant appearances.

- Providing various types of mural walls and similar facilities for self-expression. If possible, provide an opportunity for schools to create their boundaries. Some schools have ceramic tiles production classes and the artworks can be used as the edge materials.

Surveillance - Security grilles, shutters and doors should be permeable and

allow natural observation of the street and be sympathetic to the architectural style of the building.

- Walls can create hidden areas and where has to be introduced, need to be located to limit hiding areas

- The implementation of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras has been considered a supplemental tool for surveillance and a potential means of facilitating social control.

- Allow for natural surveillance, such as see-through perimeter fences

- Glass can provide passive supervision and also creates an improved aesthetic feel

- Security grilles and security doors. - Utilized vegetation should comprise of low shrubs and high

canopy planting to reduce vegetation concealment areas.

Access control - Propose demountable or movable screens that provide the

ability to move according to the needs, the flexibility of using the space differently from day to day.

Image - ISpecify sturdy and extra-durable materials

without resorting to harsh, industrial-strength, prison-like materials that might undermine the attractiveness of the place.

- Rough informal play area and hangout areas should be anticipated when planning facilities and specifying the materials used in construction, hardware, and equipment that can withstand rough play. School maintenance is increased when specified items are not sufficiently ‘youth proof. Avoid fixtures which can be easily removed or damaged by students. Use tamper-proof screws in these locations.

- Provide sufficient durable official equipment to reduce overuse of hardware for play.

- Used materials that are resistant to accidental damage.

- If the area is highly vandal, specify high resistant paints and glazing.

- Eliminate exterior hardware on all but one door in a multiple door entrance. Identify all doors that preliminary are used as exists only and remove the lock and handles from these doors. A custodian can unlock one with a key and open the rest from the inside.

- Lighter surfaces with large blocks attract more graffiti than dark surfaces. Modulate the wall or use dark colours to discourage graffiti.

- Avoid using flat or porous finishes in areas where graffiti is likely to be a problem. Where large walls are unavoidable, consider the use of vegetation or anti-graffiti paint.

- If the graphite is unavoidable (the need for a solid wall to control flood), provide an easily cleaned exterior tile wall.

- Duress alarms and CCTV can be placed low profile and hidden from view, strategically at entrances, exits, hallways, stairwells and exterior doors covering continuously, analysed and archived.

- If a window required in a high-risk area, security laminated glass can be introduced.

- The piano hinge will reduce the vandalism opportunity.

- Have a self-locking system for all windows - External lighting should be vandal resistant. - High mounted and/or protected lights are less

susceptible to vandalism.

Access control - Make use of 'natural' physical boundaries, such as steep hillsides or water

rather than walls or fences. - Encourage the use of highly visible entry points to promote natural access

control. - All boundaries should be marked with “school zone” signage - Identified routes to important places - Installing gates and other security measures (CCTV) may be necessary in

large schools to keep control of the school grounds. - If fences is required, the height of the fence may need to be changed to suit

the local conditions and characteristics of the students within the school. - Limit the number of pedestrian routes - Locate easy-to-read signs directing visitors where to report - Where possible locate the oval, play areas and student gathering set back

from the street by at least 15 meters. - Barriers such as a change in levels would work as a landscape subtle will

decrease the use by people. - Physical and/or psychological barriers (eg gardens, lawn strips, varying

textured surfaces) can be used to define different spaces. - Installation of low hedging or low open-type fencing around the periphery

of the campus or a particular area can be used to prevent children from running out onto the street

- Avoid planting trees in positions that allow people to climb them to get onto roofs and balconies

- Trees lining footpaths and driveways can help to stop motorists from driving over lawns and fields

- Planting should not be placed to screen the doors and windows of dwelling units from the street or walks leading from the street to school

Image - Consciously designed and located areas for hanging out to minimize

damage when students sit on hang-out on convenient walls, steps, planters, ledges and so on near play areas.

- Limit graphite by introducing a living wall (plant material on the wall). - Specify resilient planting that does not collect litter and is easy to clean,

such as trees or bushes without thorns. Breakable planting like young, unprotected trees near active areas can be avoided.

- Avoid soft materials such as grass or flowers immediately adjacent to narrow paths or parking areas.

- Prepare appropriate hangout areas for inevitable informal use. - Accept naturally made short cut paths. - Provide convenient rubbish containers that do not make burning rubbish

attractive. - Use plants such as Ivy and Bamboo which need minimum maintenance.

Mat

eria

lity

and

Spe

cific

atio

n


The maintenance and management of the physical asset are important. Not only does maintenance strategies for the environment need to be considered at the early design stages but integrated systems of both routine and emergency maintenance must be instituted early and continue to operate during the life of the school. Places that are well looked after sending out messages to would-be offenders that the community cares. The 4 CPTED guideline in Maintenance ad School Policy can be achieved through:

Territoriality - Implement a system to encourage the quick

reporting of safety risks. Provide information advising where to go for help and how to report maintenance or vandalism problems.

- Encourage wide community use of areas. - Valuable relation and connection with

children is a sharp decline in vandalism as students see the school grounds as their space and they try to value and nurture the space especially for high school students.

- Increase pride in school buildings and awareness of the condition of schools by including events involving students in their school facilities.

- Encourage volunteer management and maintenance of areas.

Surveillance - Well-maintained trees and foliage in school, trimmed bushes,

proper lighting, and adequate and vandal-proof landscape equipment’s can produce clear sightlines and promote natural surveillance.

Access control - If one scratch is left for a long time, or

one pane of glass broken, there is a high probability that further damage will occur around the same spot.

Image - Implement a system for prompt cleaning, repair or

replacement of infrastructure that is damaged. - Ensure the speedy repair of damaged. - Provide for the swift removal of graffiti. - Maintenance of trees and bushes (cutting)

Mai

nten

ance

4Planning & policies


Landscaping



Summary of Suggestions

Design Checklist

Landscaping

• Does the landscape consders locality of the campus including being in rural, country side, suburban or CBD?

• The design simple and easy to understand? Is there any ambiguity on-site design?

• Are the private and public spaces well defined and delimited?

• Does the design provide a clear border definition of controlled space?

• The common areas and green spaces have drawn to induce a sense of territoriality?

• Parking spaces and social facilities in the appropriate places?

• Different boundary design considered for different streetscape?

• The design and the street pattern promote safety?

• There any sidewalk or edge boundaries that allow for any hidden area?

• All the quantity and nature of the paths considered?

• Are all the allocated paths necessary?

• Do the paths lead to places where people want to go?

• The names of the school clearly visible to avoid non-intentional access?

• There clear and defined signs?

• The design considered the appropriate location of gathering areas?

• Predictable routes are dangerous or not visible, can they be eliminated?

• There somewhere to hide?

• Dead space avoided?

• Landscaping provides a good line of sight from admin to entry point?

• the proposal provides identified, overlooked and well-used routes to gain access to the school

• After-hours staff and student car parking is well-lit and in close proximity to building access points?

• The existing slopes, mounds and hills incorporated into the design?

• Does the design provide opportunities for the children and the community to provide their own input such as gardening, mural?

• Lighting allow for adequate and enough visibility so that a person can recognize a face at a proper distance (10–15 m)?

• Dark shadowed areas avoided?

• The planting effectively been specified as a barrier or edge separation?

• Does the layout already consider future hindrances to visibility, such as the growth of vegetation?


• Does the materiality respect and use locality of the campus including being in rural, country side, suburban or CBD?

• Did you specify materials which reduce opportunity theft and vandalism?

• Material is suitable for the age group is designed for?

• The colours, texture and material elements suitable for the location?

• Does the design have a warm character?

• There opportunities to unmake or destroy things?

• The equipment specification considered (rough use) vandal and tear-proof?

• Does lighting allows for adequate and enough visibility so that a person can recognize a face at a proper distance (10–15 m)?

• Dark shadowed areas avoided?

• The planting effectively been specified as a barrier or edge separation?

• Does the layout already consider future hindrances to visibility, such as the growth of vegetation?


• Does the school is well-kept and create a 'cared for' image??

• Are signs instructing people on how to report maintenance problems?

• Does the design allow for good and easy maintenance?

• Does the design allow for lockout and lockdown procedures?

• Provision of the maintenance cost being considered?

• Does the proposal allow hands-on access to doorways and windows both during operating hours and after hours?

• Lighting fixtures kept in good conditions and maintained regularly?

• Alarms and other aid-seeking devices well signalled?


Planning and Policies

• Does design recognise the needs and aspirations of the groups within the community, government agencies and key stakeholders?

• Does it respond to wider planning principles?

• Are the different land uses organized so as to encourage activity, natural surveillance, visibility and interaction between schools?

• Is the planning to street frontage ensures a high level of surveillance?

• Have the specific control measures been shared by the community?

• Are those who should feel a sense of ‘property’ toward the school involved in the definition of its identity?

• Is there a good perception of the place as a whole?

• Have the present hazards been identified?

• Has planning considered if the Student running from school, or if there is any existing high risk of crime including graphite and rubbery?

• Is there any risk of outsource harm?


• Does the design provide connection to the neighbourhood and its own context including consideration of location being in rural, country side, suburban or CBD?

• Does the design provide flexible access for the community?

• Are school buildings and equipment considered the multi-use?

• Is the type of crime identified using the questionnaire suggested in Appendix A?

• Is there any control access strategy?

• Does the design is inviting for the children?

• Have you clearly marked transitional zones to delineate private, semiprivate, and public spaces?

• What are the school functions close to the edge?

• Were the building types selected and drawn with security in mind?

• Can the learning areas and classes be closed and locked off while the public facilities are getting used during the off hours.

• Does the design have unique intrinsic characteristics?

• What obstacles are there to clear the vision?

• Is special care being taken concerning the visibility of places of higher risk?

• Is there a strategy to place unsafe activities in safe locations?

• If there is an existing topography, is this incorporated in to the design?

• Has design considered the remodelling, removal or reuse of existing buildings and spaces vulnerable to crime?

• Are there formal surveillance methods?

• Are there any blind spots?

• Is the site entry visible from the front office?

• Does design allows for informal surveillance along the circulation route to all teaching spaces and along the visible central walkways circumnavigating the site?

• Material is suitable for the age group is designed for?

Considering all the strategy suggestions outlined in previous chapter, this chapter is aiming to suggest a final review checklist on if the design considered the CPTED in design. As stated before, the checklist might differ based on each school’s needs. Firstly, identify the main charactristic of the school including:

Design Checklist


5Questionnaire

Available Materials

Level of Privacy

Appendixes

reduction), others prefer to form their children from an early age in a way that they would not steal even if the opportunity is available. An important responsibility of any society is the induction of its young people into adult life in such a way that their behaviour will be mature. This seems unrealistic to fence children off from society and except to have competent citizens in the future. This proposal is optimistic for a future where Public, Catholic and Private schools alongside the local communities all sharing libraries and sports fields in a more efficient way.

Meaningful security is best achieved through a defensive design that creates a territory for the users. Through early design implementation of site planning and architectural design, we can effectively create settings that are less accommodating to intruders in schools and as a result, the user, community and children can experience a better public realm. However, as Kotob the American architect states, this is a pie comprised of legislation, policy, education, awareness, and technology and then architecture is one small piece of it. Creating a safe school is the responsibility of the entire community and all stakeholders and decision-makers need to work together to achieve this in the best manner. Through thoughtful design and smart management of the built environment, we can provide a safe and liveable school. The most effective solutions are likely to be the ones which balance the need of the community and are flexible, adaptable and give a form of scale, identity, variation and fantasy of school and response to the operation of the school. To do so, all interested parties (students, parents, teachers, and community members) need to be involved from early in the process to achieve an effective teaching and learning environment that embraces the community, a community in the school and the school in the community.

It is an understatement to say, safety is unimportant. We know that fear of harassment and assault stops some people using public spaces and for some children, fear of school will stop them willing to go to school and will leave long-term trauma. However, we must not equate “feeling safe” with “more fear of threat, more fences, police and security”. Overdesigning and creating a prison-like environment will have a negative impact on the students and the community. Security features, while vital and necessary, should be as invisible as possible and incorporated into the school from early stages of design. Defensible School proposal is a suggestion that embraces an effective facility planning with connection to the community by outlining that local context will create a far better safe and secure environment than the high-security fences. When successfully adopted, these strategies have been shown to reduce opportunities to commit crime and increase perceived sensations of safety and will make our schools a more desirable place to be while creates a sense of identity within the school community.

Barriers do not help build community, and bars on windows tend not to contribute to a wonderful learning environment. Our future generation and the community will benefit from the design security solutions that are part of the community. The British Architectural Professor Taner Oc provides a related parenting policy example for this application. He reminds everyone that some parents might lock cupboard or drawers to prevent their children from access to cash or chocolate or so forth (opportunity

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION


FACTOR NOT AT ALL

MINIMALLY MODERATELY EXTENSIVELY DONT KNOW

Student

Staff and teachers

Parents

Community and public

Gang activity

Appendix B

Level of Privacy is required for each area

FACTOR NOT AT ALL MINIMALLY MODERATELY EXTENSIVELY DONT KNOW

Illegal weapons

Vandalism

High student mobility

Graffiti

Gang activity

Truancy

Student suspension

Student adjudicated by court

Child abuse at home

Trespassing to school grounds

Poverty

Crimes (thief, extortion,…)

Illegal drug & alcohol use

Fight, conflict & assault

Incidence of bullying & harassment

Deterioration of physical facilities

Opportunities for extracurricular programs and sport

Student support programs in school

Crisis and emergency response plans

Parents involvement in school

Supervision of student across all settings

Suicide prevention

Positive school climate for learning

Student participation in academic activities

Collaboration with community resources

High expectation for students learning & productivity

Effective teacher student relationship

Appendix A

Part 1: Please fill the below form based on your experience and knowledge on if Has school previously experienced?

Part 2: Additional comments 1. What is the most pressing safety need in your school?2. What school safety activity your school do best?3. What are the barriers in school safety measures?4. What other comments do you have for school safety?5. What other aspect not included in this survey do you believe affect school safety?6. The school has faced issues with Break and Enter, vandalism and intruders and is looking forward to having a security fence 7. Has the community crime rate increased over the past 12 months?8. Are more than 15% of your work repairs vandalism related?9. Is your community transiency rate increasing?10. Do you have an increased presence of gangs in your community?11. Is your truancy rate increasing?12. Are your suspension & expulsion rate increasing?13. Have you had isolated racial fights?14. Has there been an increasing incidence of parents withdrawing students from your school because of fear?15. Are drug easily available in or around your school?


SECURITY SYSTEM/MATERIAL

ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE MAINTENANCE SAFETY LEVEL DESIGN CRITERIA

DURABILITY SOCIAL IMPACT

Metal framed fence

Chain fence

Railing

perforated metal panel

Bollards

Aluminium post

Timber panel

Straw board or Bamboo

Masonry

Ceramic Tiles

Building asset as the boundary edge

Less than 1m high walls

Soft hedges

Screening plants

Mound with ground cover

Movable or portable fence

Equipment racks such as bicycle

Change in texture or colour

Camera

Appendix C

Australia has a rich history of fences not only in the suburbia but also in the rural areas and not only schools only. However, the fences were specific to their own region, available materials and industry. The fences differ in each context and landscape and includes a variety of dog-leg fence, dingo-proof wire fence and rabbit-proof fences, stone fences or corrugated iron fences. Similar to the past, the materials can be selected based on the specific needs and local material. The table below, outlines some of the possible options and can be used to categorise each option for their advanatges and disadvanatges.

References

Atlas, R. I. (2013) 21st century security and CPTED : designing for critical infrastructure protection and crime prevention . Second edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press, PP291- 293, 288, 286, 300, 304

Atlas, R. & Schneider, R. (2007) Schools Behind Bars? Security Technology & Design. 17 (8), 32–34,36,38.

Bracy, N. L. (2011) Student Perceptions of High-Security School Environments. Youth & Society.

Burgess, J. P. (2011) The ethical subject of security geopolitical reason and the threat against Europe . London ;: Routledge , 131.

Crowe, T. D. (2000) Crime prevention through environmental design : applications of architectural design and space management concepts . 2nd ed. Boston, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dalgaard-Nielsen, A. et al. (2016) Visible Counterterrorism Measures in Urban Spaces-Fear-Inducing or Not? Terrorism and Political Violence. [Online] 28 (4), 692–712.

Newman, O. (1973) Defensible space : people and design in the violent city . London: Architectural Press.

Grosskopf, K. (2006) Evaluating the societal response to antiterrorism measures. Journal of homeland security and emergency management, 1-17

Huang, S.-C. L. (2012) A STUDY OF THE PERCEPTION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FENCES IN URBAN AREAS. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 29 (2), 150–163.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities . New York: Random House.

Mcshane, I. & Wilson, C. K. (2017) Beyond the School Fence: Rethinking Urban Schools in the Twenty-first Century. Urban Policy and Research.

Merry, S. (1981) Defensible Space Undefended: ‘Social Factors in Crime Control Through Environmental Design’. Urban Affairs Quarterly. 16 (4), pp. 397-422.

Rooney, T. (2015) Higher stakes - the hidden risks of school security fences for children’s learning environments. Environmental Education Research. [Online] 21 (6), no. 6, 885.

Architect of Capital, Trends in violent crime. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, viewed 02 October 2018, https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Crime and Justice Bulletin, viewed 2 January 2019, https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/cjb80.pdf

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Recorded Crime Statistics, viewed 02 October 2018, NSW Recorded Crime Statistics quarterly update September 2018

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Recorded Crime Statistics, viewed 02 October 2018, https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/mr_kt96.pdf

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Recorded Crime Statistics, viewed 02 October 2018, https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/MR/mr_cjb37.pdf

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Recorded Crime Statistics, viewed 02 October 2018, https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/MR/mr_rcs1997.pdf

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Recorded Crime Statistics, viewed 02 October 2018, https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/MR/mr_cjb44.pdf

NSW Police Public Site, Safer by Design, viewed 9 January 2019, http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/crime_prevention/safer_by_design

David Lindner Prize2018

Defensible schoolJamileh Jahangiri

2018 David Lindner Research Prize...working across a diverse range of scales and typologies,...

Documents

Transcript of 2018 David Lindner Research Prize...working across a diverse range of scales and typologies,...