By Robert Davis, retired Waterloo Regional Police Constable
This paper examines the inspiration and process by which a problem-plagued community was mobilized with the assistance of Cst. Rob Davis of Waterloo Regional Police (now retired) along with Jayne Matzeg from the John Howard Society. The initiative successfully reduced calls for police service in the Victoria Hills neighbourhood of Kitchener-Waterloo along with requests for service from other community agencies.
The resolution of this issue was inspired by a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) course instructed by Cst. Tom McKay of Peel Regional Police Service in 1995, which held that “the proper design and effective use of the environment can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime as well as an improvement in the quality of life”.
This, along with other influences such as William Schutz’s FIRO theory and Dr. Felton Earl’s landmark study detailing the elements of environmental design necessary to nurture interpersonal relationships and collective efficacy as it relates to creating resilient communities, helped me to bridge urban design thoughts developed by Jane Jacobs (The Death and Life of Great American Cities) along with sociology and psychology. Another significant influence was provided by Professors Emeritus Kenneth Westhues and Sally Lerner, both of the University of Waterloo, to whom I am forever grateful for having helped me change my thinking as a police officer while taking their classes. Collectively, these sources played a major influence in my realization that environmental design could be integrated with the basic human needs of inclusion, control and affection, in fostering community cohesion to reduce not only crime but also social agency calls for service.
So, too, it helped me to recognize that the concept of effectiveness is magnified when paired with a psychological framework like Schutz’s FIRO theory, which identifies inclusion, control and affection as core human needs. Further, Dr. Felton Earl’s research on community cohesiveness validates that neighborhoods with strong social bonds exhibit lower rates of violence which leads me to suggest that CPTED, when aligned with these rational needs of inclusion, control, and affection, becomes a catalyst for collective efficacy — the shared trust and willingness among residents to intervene for the common good.
In order for this to happen, one must first understand that CPTED principles are not merely physical but also have social aspects to wit:
1. Natural Surveillance: Designing visibility (e.g., street lighting, open sightlines) to promote informal monitoring.
2. Territorial Reinforcement: Using markers (e.g., fences, landscaping) to define ownership and deter trespassing.
3. Access Control: Restricting entry points to regulate movement.
4. Maintenance: Well-kept spaces signal community care and vigilance.
These principles create an environment where residents can feel empowered to engage with their surrounding neighborhoods, communicating with each other.
Now, combining CPTED with William Schutz’s FIRO theory that explains that human behavior is driven by three interpersonal needs:
1. Inclusion: The desire to belong and participate in groups.
2. Control: The need to influence outcomes within established boundaries.
3. Affection: The pursuit of emotional connections and trust.
Let’s look at inclusion, control, and affection as three ingredients to bake a cake, for example. By not including one of these three ingredients, the cake won’t rise or be delicious.
This theory I have researched in my own life can be applied to two or two hundred people to build cohesive relationships when combining these three ingredients. For instance, with CPTED theory if you take a safe activity and place it in an unsafe environment, you should have a reduction in crime.
One example of this has been the development of a community garden that embraced all three ingredients thus creating a safer community. In a sense, it became another variation of a neighborhood watch program.
Let’s look at these three ingredients in a more detailed view:
Inclusion: Designing spaces for belonging. A key component of inclusion will reduce alienation, a precursor to criminal behavior. Accepted strategies include mixing user spaces such as parks, plazas, and community centers that encourage community interaction across demographics, as well as pedestrian-friendly infrastructure such as sidewalks and bike lanes that promote casual encounters. Cultural landmarks could include public art or memorials that reflect the community identity.
Earl’s research found that neighborhoods with high collective efficacy built through inclusive spaces exhibit lower violence. For example, Chicago’s “Youth Safe Zones,” which repurposed vacant lots into community gardens, reduced school shootings by 29% (Earl et al., 1997).
The project, with community input, was planting a community garden that was overlooked by the surrounding apartment buildings. This is well documented by Constable Tom McKay from Peel Regional Police in his article ‘Empty Spaces, Dangerous Places’, (Plan Canada, 1998). The community garden served as an enhanced neighborhood watch program that still exists today in Victoria Hills, Kitchener, resulting in a significant reduction of police service calls.
Control: Empowering communities through territoriality, such as fences, signage, landscaping, and ownership. Participatory design of these projects involves mobilizing residents in the initial planning stages. Newman’s concept of zone (private, semi-private, public) helps clarify responsibility. When linking CPTED to William Schutz’s FIRO theory, residents who can exert control over their environment are more likely to intervene in antisocial behavior.
In Victoria Hills Garden, residents developed pride and ownership of the neighborhood, expelling crime simply by being visible in the garden. No direct involvement was needed.
Affection: Cultivating emotional bonds through design. Affection builds trust within the community, mobilizing relationships between social agencies, police, and others. Accepted strategies can include other places such as cafés, libraries, and playgrounds where informal relationships form. Warm lighting and benches in public places can encourage people to engage in conversations. Housing layouts with shared courtyards or public spaces foster neighborhood bonds.
All I am suggesting is that community cohesion and physical design are both important to consider in the area of crime prevention.
Conclusion: In this article, I have briefly expanded the possibilities and positions of CPTED to bridge the gap between urban design and the psychological fabric of our community. It has shown that it transcends physical design when it addresses relationship needs, such as William Schutz points out. By fostering inclusion, control, and affection, cities can cultivate communities where crime is deterred not by barriers but by relationships.
Policymakers and urban planners must prioritize social infrastructure alongside brick-and-mortar solutions to create safer, thriving, mobilized neighborhoods. This will help create pride and ownership.
References:
Butterfield, F. (1997). Study links violence rates to cohesion and community. Journal of Science.
Earls, F. (1997). Project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods. Harvard School of Public Health.
Schutz, W. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. McMillan.
Matzeg, J. (1994). John Howard Society of Waterloo Region: Victoria Hills Garden, City of Kitchener.
McKay, T. (1998). Empty Spaces, Dangerous Places. Plan Canada.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York City.