|
Hangouts Hampered
March 25, 2011
Design Assessment Can Identify Lures for Loitering
By Tom McKay
Loitering is a common nuisance that many property managers tend to overlook, particularly when they are focusing valuable time and resources on more serious and pressing problems. Unfortunately, though, unstructured loitering is frequently a cause of those more pressing problems – taking the form of criminality and/or related property damage.
Unstructured loitering is a very popular activity among a youthful demographic that can be fraught with social and behavioural risk. It typically occurs in publicly owned or publicly accessible settings where interlopers perceive a weak or unclear sense of ownership and two or more of the following risk factors are present.
Convenience
Loitering is most likely to occur in convenient and known locations in areas where ownership is weak, or during times of limited or weak monitoring and control. This can include walkways, hallways, stairwells, poorly observed places, schools, community centres, parks etc. or any combination thereof. Examples of these types of environments include school hallways when classes are in session (private space with weak ownership) or playgrounds after dusk (public space with weak ownership).
However, convenience isn’t always the driving factor where loitering occurs in an out-of-the way location where the owner/manager’s control is non-existent. In such cases, loiterers will be prepared to travel farther or overcome significant barriers on the property because they are drawn to the prospect of having full control of the space. This might be deep inside a naturalized area or the roof of a building, for example.
Comfort
Comfort is a relative factor that distinguishes one setting from another according to its ability to provide for the comfortable passage of time. Comfortable settings must first and foremost be able to physically support loitering as a long-term activity. This generally requires open space or a lack of conflicting traffic where space is at a premium, such as a sidewalk.
Comfort also encompasses the availability of basic creature comforts. This can include intentional comforts such as a park bench, or improvised seating arranged in socially conducive settings – such as logs, ledges and/or walls. Heat can be another source of comfort, and can be intentional or unintentional – such as when derived from a ventilation source.
Concealment
Concealment offers basic cover for loiterers at or near grade or on a specific level or floor of a structure. It typically takes the form of physical objects, such as landscaping and/or structures, and can partially or completely obscure the surrounding area. Indeed, complete concealment may actually inhibit loitering by hiding potential areas from loiterers’ attention.
Loiterers can benefit from directional concealment when the area is located away from the general direction of travel. They can also exploit elements of the environment to disguise their purposes. This is known as purpose concealment and occurs, for example, when perpetrators stand in a bus shelter for the purpose of dealing drugs or use a telephone booth to avoid suspicion. Because it happens in the open, it is not readily controlled.
Canopy/cover
Canopy extends beyond the basic forms of concealment and offers a level of overhead protection from the elements and/or prying eyes. It can take constructed (overhang) or natural (forest) forms, and typically serves to give loiterers within the space a heightened sense of security. Cover is a complete form of canopy, typically provided by a roof system (e.g. gazebos), but may simply be the “cover of darkness”. The sense of cover provided by a roof system may be reduced by the volume of a space.
Unstructured loitering typically occurs in at-risk environments that hold wide appeal to a youthful demographic and are a susceptible to opportunity crimes. As such, they can become rallying points, which, when combined with loitering, serve as an incubator for delinquent tendencies.
This can result in criminal activity and/or a number of associated risks. These risks can includes increased fear among the general population which, if severe enough, can lead to avoidance behaviour; desensitization to the presence of strangers/furnishing of an excuse; purpose concealment with respect to staging or engaging in a criminal act; and economic loss.
THE KNOW LOITERING MATRIX
The Know Loitering Matrix was developed as a space and design assessment tool for the purpose of assessing and understanding the potential of loitering as a risk. It is presented in the form of a risk management matrix and was developed from the perspective of the undesired loiterer.
The matrix characterizes space as either private or publically accessible with the only other distinction being weak or strong ownership. This creates four distinctive types of space, commonly categorized into private, semi-private, semi-public and public space.
Risk is then factored into the matrix and ranked according to the number of risk factors present. Convenience is typically a factor for any given location, while cover is common to most internal applications.
The insights gained from the Know Loitering matrix can be used to predict and mitigate loitering and its related problems.
For example, a building’s structural outcroppings, such as pipes and railings, offer a place to sit, which in turn provides comfort. If those factors are then combined with convenience and a publicly accessible location where ownership can be weak, the resulting risk rating indicates that incidents or disturbances are “more likely than not” to occur.
Designs should be assessed at the planning stage for their potential to attract unstructured loitering, which will then allow planners, designers and/or property managers to modify the plan and/or include features that should minimize the risk. That might mean reducing the presence of bench-like surfaces and alcoves; controlling access; strengthening the perception of the owner/manager’s presence; or fundamentally changing the nature of the space.
The Know Loitering Matrix should also be used to encourage and support the development of structured loitering areas. Structured loitering areas should be designed to have a rating of “somewhat likely” or “less likely” to accommodate inappropriate behaviour.
Constable Tom McKay is a Crime Prevention Officer with the Peel Regional Police, a practitioner of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and the originator of the Know Loitering Matrix. He can be reached at Thomas.Mckay@peelpolice.ca.
|