Positioning of the results in the current body of knowledge

An important construct of the body of knowledge is dealing with the occurrence of criminal events. The routine activity theory by Cohen and Felson (1979) can be seen as a major contribution regarding this subject. The theory entails that criminal events are the result of the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets, when capable guardians are absent. Given this theory, an important condition necessary for effective camera surveillance projects would then be that users of the public space are aware of the presence of cameras (Van Eijk et al., 2006). The effect of surveillance cameras on offenders and the extent to which cameras can act as capable guardians has been subject of empirical research. Cameras are believed to have an impact on the rational choice of offenders by increasing the perceived costs of a criminal act. However, increasing the perceived costs is not enough to prevent crime from occurring. The rewards for an offender may still be high enough to proceed with criminal acts. This is underlined by the empirical studies investigating the ‘capable guardian’ effect of cameras on crime rates. The extent to which camera surveillance can act as a capable guardian is ambiguous, and appeared to be highly influenced by the setting in - and purpose for which cameras surveillance is executed. For example, cameras are believed to be a capable guardian in car parks, but are less effective as a guardian in nightlife areas (Welsh and Farrington, 2009; Schreijenberg & Homburg, 2010). The relation between target suitability and surveillance cameras has, up to present, not been a subject of abundant empirical research. Nevertheless, the routine activity theory implies that elderly are less often part of the convergence between offenders and targets in absence of guardians, and therefore

61

less often victim of a criminal event. Because it was found to be difficult to translate the routine activity theory in quantifiable subject for analysis, the empirical research executed for this study focussed on the awareness on camera surveillance and the effect of cameras on the sense of security. Although it is believed to be important for the effectiveness of a camera surveillance project, the awareness on the presence of cameras is found to be low in the Amsterdam context. To be able to address notions of the routine activity theory, gender and age specific findings have been discussed during the analysis of the gathered data. In interesting finding in light of the routine activity is, for example, that elderly in the shopping areas experience a better sense of security than youngsters in the same area. It is possible that the high level of sense of security amongst elderly is so great because their routine activity pattern ensures that they less often converge with motivated offenders. Additionally, it is argued that elderly are more vulnerable, making them more often a suitable target than others. However, since they are less often victimized, they appear to be aware of their vulnerability and ensure their safety by adaption their routine activity. Evidence for this statement is not supplied by this research, but could be an interesting subject for further research.

Whereas camera surveillance can be executed in both public and private domain, the focus of this study has been on the former. The rise of camera surveillance in public areas was, over the last decades, largely driven by an increase in public anxiety regarding recorded crime, resulting in demanding pressure on governments to provide a solution. When governments decide to execute camera surveillance in an area, the expected effect is twofold: 1) it influences the objective safety by diminishing targeted crime and 2) it changes the subjective safety. However, as apparent from the existing literature discussed in the body of knowledge, evidence for the utility of camera surveillance is divergent. The most important meta- evaluation studies are the ones with very strict methodological standards. These have, on average, showed a positive but small effect with regard to objective safety, although this finding is believed to be largely driven by the success of camera surveillance projects in British car parks. The impression has been noted that the setting in which camera surveillance is executed is of significant importance for its effectiveness. Furthermore, actively monitored camera surveillance appears to significantly improve the deterring effect on crime rates. Caution is still needed given the fragile body of knowledge underlying these statements, which is possibly the consequence of strict methodological standards of evaluation studies. The subjective effect of camera surveillance is found to be highly contested in literature, although on the base of factors contributing to a fear of crime, the potential of camera

62

surveillance becomes evident. CCTV possibly influences the perceived vulnerability as well as the perceived probability of detection. In evaluation studies regarding the sense of security, evidence is found for the statement that cameras increased the fear of crime. However, more recently, opposing results have been found. Schreijenberg and Homburg (2010) argued that camera surveillance has a positive effect on the feelings of safety of the public. Finally, when taking the rational choice theory into account, camera surveillance is believed to increase the level of security due to increased costs for offenders to commit a crime. However, cameras are not a physical barrier, or physically able to prevent crimes from occurring. This is different from the effect that human surveillance or real guardians have, making it questionable whether cameras are of the same category of preventive measures (Piza, 2016). As said previously in this paragraph, the focus of the empirical research executed for this study was mainly on the subjective effect of camera surveillance. Likewise the international and national studies, convincing evidence that surveillance cameras help to increase the sense of security of visitors could not be provided. However, the evidence is not extensive and the research methodology chosen for this empirical research leaves room for discussion. Finally, the notions on the public stance regarding camera surveillance included in this research helped to gain insight in the possible effect of camera surveillance. Prior to the execution of a camera surveillance project, visitors tend to expect more of the diffusion of benefits and are more reluctant regarding privacy issues. Knowledge on the real effect of camera surveillance, scientifically as well as socially, can improve the utility of its use in public areas.

To conclude, the research field regarding the effect of camera surveillance is still rather small, and largely dominated by contributions of a relative small group of academia. Besides, the current body of knowledge, outcomes of effect studies are often contradicting one another; there is still no common ground regarding the effect of cameras. The conducted research contributes to the existing body of knowledge, however, does not solve the current ambiguity in science. Furthermore, it is tried to conduct the research is appropriate fashion, but the methodological standards from the respected studies were not met. Nevertheless, it has been useful to conduct the research. Maybe not in the sense that striking, new insights have been acquired, but in the end, more research in this field is necessary to create a better understanding of all the facets of public camera surveillance projects.

63 6.2 Data.

Data was collected to provide an answer on the research questions. While reading the results and conclusion of this research, one should bear in mind that these chapters are influenced by choices made in the data collection process. This section will comprise a reflection on choices regarding the sample selection, the location, the questionnaire and the analyses that are executed.

6.2.1 Sample selection

Since it is impossible to collect information of all users of the public space about the sense of security and the awareness of surveillance cameras in the shopping areas, a sample has been taken. The respondents are selected through a random selection method. This implies that visitors of the shopping centres are randomly chosen, without any selection criteria. Moreover, by conducting the questionnaire on different moments in time, it is tried to incorporate respondents with all kinds of shopping patterns. However, this random selection method could not overcome the risk that certain categories of visitors, for example those who not like to participate in studies, are not represented in the sample. Pitfall in this regard is that the (basic) characteristics and the rate of non-responders are not recorded. This leads to the notion that biased results might have influenced the presented conclusion.

Although the non-response rate is not measured, it is observed that the willingness to participate was a lot higher on weekdays compared to night-time shopping or weekends. Besides, in shopping area ‘Oostpoort’ the willingness to participate in the research was believed to be lower than in shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’. This might have to do with the extensive amount of street vendors and charity membership recruiters which are present throughout the day in shopping area ‘Oostpoort’. Visitors might be cautious of being trapped for these purposes. In contrast to shopping centre ‘Oostpoort’, ‘Boven ‘t Y’ has an official ban on these commercial activities. However, supporting evidence of this observation and possible reason for a lower participation rate is, in this regard, lacking. Therefore, the sample is not for 100% representative for the empirical situation. Furthermore, it has to be acknowledged is that the conclusions are based on a relatively small sample. Due to time limitations it has been impossible to enlarge the sample. From the 184 questionnaires, 90 are conducted in an area where camera surveillance is executed. The sample on which the

64

Amsterdam communal administration based its conclusions was more than double the size of this empirical research.

6.2.2 Locations

Shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ has been selected as the main subject of this study. Camera surveillance is executed for a long period in this area, resulting in an abundant body of evaluations and the expectation that empirical research would provide in interesting insights. To comply with the methodological requirement of an effect study, a shopping area without camera surveillance but with similar characteristics as ‘Boven ‘t Y’ was needed. This turned out to be shopping area ‘Oostpoort’. The range of shops is to a large extent similar in both centres and both areas house a municipal district centre. However, there are also differences between the locations. For example, the locations have not the exact same size. Besides, shopping centre ‘Oostpoort’ has one ‘TCR’-star, which is associated with a low level of crime prevention in the shopping area. Shopping area ‘Boven ‘t Y’ is awarded with the highest amount of ‘TCR’-stars available, being five. This indicates that business owners and enforcement authorities cooperate a lot, resulting in high preventive standards. Furthermore, ‘Oostpoort’ is just recently renovated, while shopping centre ‘Boven ‘t Y’ is significantly older and is, according to the respondents, in the need of renovation. Obvious difference is the presence of surveillance cameras. Although this was a condition necessary for a quasi- experimental research design, it should be taken into account that this has possibly been of influence on the results, in a different way than investigated in this research. For example, crime rates in ‘Oostpoort’ might be low anyway, and regardless the perceived presence of cameras, visitors therefore experience a positive sense of security.

6.2.3 Questionnaire

The questionnaire is established based on the presented body of knowledge and previous research in the field of camera surveillance. This is leading to multiple point of discussion. The sequence in the questions might have been of influence on the answers and some questions might have been suggestive to some respondents. After the questionnaire was conducted, many respondents were wondering what the subject of the research was. When introducing the questionnaire, it was not mentioned that the survey was meant to investigate

65

the effect of camera surveillance. This was done on purpose, to prevent preoccupation in the answers, but might have result in other, unforeseen bias. Additionally, when looking at specific questions, it is possible that a factor of confirming the question on the presence of cameras was at play, and this should be taken into account. Besides, with regard to the awareness on surveillance cameras, it has to be mentioned that a respondent is explicitly asked about cameras monitoring public space. If there were doubts whether the question was clearly understood, the difference between private cameras monitoring visitors of shops and public cameras monitoring public space was explained. Multiple people indicated that they expected cameras to be present, both in ‘Oostpoort’ and ‘Boven ‘t Y’. In this case, the question was asked again, usually resulting in the confession that knowledge on actual presence of cameras was lacking. Thus, the expectation that surveillance cameras are present within the entire city borders of Amsterdam might have been of influence on the presented results. Finally, the extent to which socially desirable answers have been noted during the survey is debatable. The topic of this study touches upon possible sensitive subjects, like sense of security and fear of crime, and a researcher in the streets might not be the most trusted person in a respondent’s life. Furthermore, although it is tried to generate a good representation of opinions, mainly through the time control mechanism, it is still possible that people restrict their behaviour to safe places or safe times outside the framework of this empirical study.

Analyses

Some remarks have to be noted with regard to the analyses conducted for this research and the representation of the results.

As said in paragraph 6.2.1, the research sample has been relatively small. From the total amount of respondents, 136 indicated to lack knowledge on the presence of CCTV cameras. Furthermore, independent from the research location, five people indicated that cameras are not present. The remaining 43 respondents perceiving cameras to be present have been used to determine the effect of cameras on the sense of security. This sample size is regarded to be small and decreases the validity of this study. Moreover, the effect of perceived presence of cameras on the sense of security is found to be slightly positive but non-significant. A larger sample increases the chance on scientific significant findings, making it desirable to increase the sample. Then, when interpreting the results, one should bear in mind that the study

66

involves a sample in a strictly defined area. Apparent from the body of knowledge regarding the effect of camera surveillance, the area in which camera surveillance is executed is of importance. Therefore, caution is needed when generalizing the findings of this research to the entire public area. Subsequently, it has to be noted that mistakes might have been made when transforming data from Stata and Excel spread sheets into the presented tables and figures. However, it is expected that if mistakes have been made, they were not of the magnitude of influencing the final conclusions.

A t-test has been used to investigate if the perceived presence of cameras is leading to a greater sense of security among visitors of the two shopping areas. This resulted in the conclusion that the perceived presence of surveillance cameras appears to have a positive influence on the sense of security, however, the results were not statistically significant. A point of discussion with regard to the t-test, it that it is assumed that the perceived presence of surveillance cameras is of influence on the sense of security. However, it is also possible that the sense of security of influences the perceived presence of surveillance cameras. For example, when a visitor of an area experiences a negative sense of security, he might be very focused on his surrounding, thereby notifying the presence of surveillance cameras. Similar caution is needed when discussing the results of the final analyses. The effect of routine activity patterns on the sense of security is not tightly controlled, and it remains unknown how the two variables relate to each other (which variable has an influence on the other). Additionally, the relation between routine activity patterns and the presence of surveillance cameras has not been subject of investigation. Therefore, the differences that are found and discussed are possibly attributed to features outside the used methodology.