Much has changed in the thirty-one years since I took Tim Crowe’s CPTED course. Styles, technology, the way we communicate including the language and the care with which we choose our words especially those that can be interpreted as labels. In this regard, I believe that it is time that we reimagine a term that we use in CPTED. Specifically, I am referring to the term “abnormal user” which, to the uninitiated, refers to persons that you (the agent or owner of the property) do not desire to be in a space. While the way that the word is used is not inconsistent with its dictionary definition, I have never been a fan of the term for the following reasons.
First, many people’s behaviour is not so neatly disposed as to fall into only one of two categories. A person who engages in a prohibited activity is clearly not desired to be in that space and hence may be categorized as an “abnormal” user. If on the other hand that same person chooses to cease this behaviour in favour of engaging in a desired one, such as making a store purchase, then they clearly now can be categorized as a “normal” user.
Next, the terms abnormal and desire can be very broad and, as such, are subject to interpretation. In the case of the word “desire,” it is very easy to attach the concept of implicit bias to the phrase “persons that you do not desire to be in a space.” And as for the word “abnormal,” it is susceptible to being used and/or regarded as a label.
I encountered an example of this while discussing the use of CPTED terms and language with a new Board member. During that discussion, I began to qualify what is meant by the term “abnormal user.” This quickly raised the prospect of it being used to describe homeless people and, in so doing, ran the risk of it being perceived as a label. As this was never the intention of the use of the term, I think it prudent that we consider the use of more precise language when referring to any person or group of people.
In that regard, I personally favour the substitution of the term rule follower and rule breaker, as that takes into account that people are known to flit back and forth between being following and breaking rules. It further sets an objective standard from which we can better categorize their behaviour. At the same time, it removes some of the potential for misunderstanding and, at its worst, subjectivity which is why I always judge graffiti artists/vandals on the basis of whether they had permission and never the merits of art.
It is therefore very important that CPTED practitioner’s use precise language. It is why I previously disavowed the term “hostile” landscaping in favour of buffer landscaping in a 2020 article that I wrote for the CPTED Ontario Summer Newsletter entitled CPTED in a Hyper-Sensitized World which was written in response to calls to cease CPTED in the wake of George Floyd’s tragic death on the prospect that practitioners had, to that point, been using it as a “tool of violence and oppression against Black Americans”.
At the very least, I believe that anyone who finds themselves using the term needs to be cautious until such time as a general consensus develops around a more suitable alternative. In this regard, I urge them to be careful to clearly articulate who is, and where warranted, is not considered to be an “abnormal user” particularly in any and all circumstances where this might be misinterpreted as a label with respect to a particular person or an identifiable user group.