Contents

• • ABSTRACT
  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • PREFACE TO PART 1
  
  
• 1 INTRODUCTION
• 2 ESTABLISHING THE FACTS
  • 2.1 ASPECTS OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD
  • 2.2 RESEARCHERS AND BIAS
  
  
• 3 OVERVIEW OF LIGHT AND CRIME STUDIES
  • 3.1 RESULTS FROM THE USA
  • 3.2 RESULTS FROM THE UK
  • 3.3 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS
  • 3.4 NEW JERSEY QUASI-EXPERIMENTS
  • 3.5 HOTSPOTS AND CRIME DISPLACEMENT
  
  
• 4 SPECIFIC PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE
  • 4.1 PAINTER AND FARRINGTON (1997)
  • 4.2 PAINTER AND FARRINGTON (2001A)
  • 4.3 PAINTER AND FARRINGTON (1999A)
  • 4.4 PAINTER AND FARRINGTON (1999B, 2001B)
  • 4.5 PEASE (1998, 1999)
  • 4.6 QUINET AND NUNN (1998)
  
  
• 5 THE FARRINGTON AND WELSH META-ANALYSIS
  • 5.1 REASONABLE BENEFIT LIMITS
  • 5.2 MORE ON THE DUDLEY AND STOKE-ON-TRENT STUDIES
  • 5.3 THE BIRMINGHAM MARKET STUDY
  • 5.4 THE DOVER CAR PARK STUDY
  • 5.5 IMPROVING THE META-ANALYSIS
  
  
• 6 FEAR OF CRIME
• 7 LIGHTS, CAMERAS, SECURITY?
  • 7.1 SECURITY LIGHTING
  • 7.2 LIGHTING FOR CCTV CAMERAS
  • 7.3 CCTV AND CRIME
  
  
• 8 DISCUSSION
• 9 CONCLUSIONS
  • 9.1 EXISTING KNOWLEDGE OF LIGHTING EFFECTS ON CRIME
  • 9.2 DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF LIGHTING
  • 9.3 BIAS IN LIGHTING AND CRIME EXPERIMENTS
  • 9.4 ASSESSMENT OF REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
  • 9.5 DEBUNKING THE MYTH OF LIGHTING FOR CRIME PREVENTION
  • 9.6 CCTV AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR CRIME PREVENTION
  • 9.7 SECURITY LIGHTING AND STREET LIGHTING
  
  
• 10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• 11 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
• 12 REFERENCES
• Bibliography
• About this document ...