Scholarly article on topic 'Validating Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Using Structural Equation Model'

Validating Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Using Structural Equation Model Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{CPTED / crime / "confirmatory factor analysis" / "structural equation modeling"}

Abstract of research paper on Economics and business, author of scientific article — Aldrin Abdullah, Nordin Abd Razak, Mohd Najib Mohd Salleh, Siti Rasidah Md Sakip

Abstract In gauging Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, observation is often used by researchers in evaluating CPTED elements in residential areas. However, the evaluation on attitude, reaction, belief, responsibility and perception of the residents on CPTED elements are also important to be considered. Therefore, a survey on the perception of residents on CPTED elements was conducted in non-gated and gated residential areas located at Putrajaya and Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor. The results found that the Territoriality and Maintenance dimension achieved a good fit index where the values for GFI, TLI and CFI exceeded 0.90 and the RMSEA value was less than 0.05.

Academic research paper on topic "Validating Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Using Structural Equation Model"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SciVerse ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 36 (2012) 591 - 601

AcE-Bs 2011 Bandung

ASEAN Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, Savoy Homann Bidakara Bandung Hotel, Bandung, Indonesia, 15-17 June 2011

Validating Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Using Structural Equation Model

Aldrin Abdullahb, Nordin Abd Razakb, Mohd Najib Mohd Sallehb &

Siti Rasidah Md Sakipa*

aFaculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, University Technology Mara Perak, Bandar Seri Iskandar, 32610 Perak, Malaysia bSchool of Housing, Building & Planning, University Science of Malaysia, 11800, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Abstract

In gauging Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, observation is often used by researchers in evaluating CPTED elements in residential areas. However, the evaluation on attitude, reaction, belief, responsibility and perception of the residents on CPTED elements are also important to be considered. Therefore, a survey on the perception of residents on CPTED elements was conducted in non-gated and gated residential areas located at Putrajaya and Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor. The results found that the Territoriality and Maintenance dimension achieved a good fit index where the values for GFI, TLI and CFI exceeded 0.90 and the RMSEA value was less than 0.05.

© 2012 Published b y Elsevier B.V. Sel ection and/or peer-review un der responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies(cE-Bs), Faculty of Architecture , Planning & Surveying, Univeesiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

Keywords: CPTED; crime; confirmatory factor analysis; structural equation modeling

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-019 279 8594; fax: +6-005 374 2244. E-mail address: sitir704@perak.uitm.edu.my.

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies(cE-Bs),

Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.065

1. Introduction

Crime is one of the biggest problems in cities around the world. It may appear that today "crime is part of our way of living" (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993). This issue has given rise to various problems in terms of fear of crime and has become a major disturbance for residents in urban areas (Nasar & Jones, 1997). This has subsequently led to the need for crime prevention actions to be taken. There are four approaches to crime prevention, namely: (a) the legal system or the enforcement of policed control systems (Dantzker & Robinson, 2002); (b) social approaches (Bennet, Holloway, & Farrington, 2006; Simons, 2002; Syarmila Hany, 2008; Welsh & Hoshi, 2002); (c) approaches relating to the crime perpetrators (Paul Michael Cozens, Saville, & Hillier, 2005); and, (d) approaches through environmental design (Brantingham & Brantingham, 2005; Blakely & Synder, 1997; Jacobs, 1961; Newman 1972). Each one of these approaches has their own unique and different measurement methods in changing the behavioural patterns of an individual in committing crime.

Among the four methods of crime prevention as listed above, the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach is perceived to have a stronger effect in influencing fear towards crime (Nasar & Fisher, 1993). This is due to the fact that the CPTED approach involves constant elements that may be modified through planning and design. This has been proven through several research that discovered that the physical environment can open up opportunities for crimes to be committed (Anastasia & John, 2007; Taylor & Harrel, 1996). According to Lamya Rostami Tabrizi and Ali Madanipour (2006), physical layout, housing typologies as well as neighbourhood outlook and appearance are the main criteria that become the focus for the occurrence of crime. This aspect is believed to have a correlation with certain physical configurations which may generate more comfortable surroundings in which people can communicate and act in a better and easier way (Bynum & Purri, 1984).

However, in measuring the CPTED elements in residential areas, most researchers have solely used the observation method alone (Hedayati, 2009; Minnery & Lim, 2005) and this method is seen to have some drawbacks as it does not take into account the residents' perception, responsibilities and actions towards the CPTED elements (Siti Rasidah & Aldrin, 2010). Therefore, the objectives of this study are to identify the perception of the residents towards CPTED elements as well as to investigate and validate the perception construct against the CPTED elements in residential areas with regards to fear of crime.

2. Literature review

Crime is a complex phenomenon and has various cumulative effects on the aspects of finance and psychology such as the loss of property, insurance, justice, victimization and security (Andresen & Jenion, 2008). This issue becomes more worrisome when the criminal act causes the loss of the victims' lives during the occurrence of the crime (Birkbeck & Lafree, 1993). According to the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) (2008), incidences of crime can be categorized into two types, which are index crimes and non-index crimes. Index crimes are crimes that are normally reported and have sufficient significance to be considered as important as an indication towards the level of crime, for instance property crimes such as house break-ins (PDRM, 2008). Non-index crimes on the other hand, involve cases of crime that are not considered to be a measurement of crime streams. Non-indexed crimes usually involve crimes that are more commercial in nature such as fraud cases, insurance fraud, currency forgery, breach of trust and others (PDRM, 2008).

In Malaysia, the property crime stream has had an index increase of 28,871 cases for a period of seven years from 2001 to 2007 (PDRM, 2008). For crimes involving house break-ins, Malaysia has experienced a crime rate increase of 2.1 percent for a three-year period between 2005 and 2007 (PDRM, 2008) and

according to Amar Singh Sidhu (2006), in a period of 24 years (1980 to 2004), Malaysia has a reported 90 percent property crime make-up against all other crimes for every year. In addition to this, according to the global house break-in crime index comparative report, based on calculations of 100,000 residents of selected nations in 2007, Malaysia is the second highest country after Japan (137.5 cases) that has the highest house break-in index level of 123.02 criminal cases from 100,000 residents. This index level is evidently high when compared with four other countries, such as, China 65.1 cases, Indonesia 27.19 cases, Armenia 25.22 cases and Singapore 18.9 cases (PDRM, 2009). The increase of this crime rate is felt to have a connection with the increase in population. According to Amar Singh Sidhu (2006), the Malaysia population increased at a rate of 2.6 percent annually. This increase in the population level is believed to be able to increase the incidences of crime as much as 2.6 percent. As such, Amar Singh Sidhu (2006) estimates that the crime index in Malaysia will increase to 208,076 cases in the year 2015. This estimation has raised a lot of fear and anxiety as well as capturing the attention of the Malaysian populace.

Fear towards crime can be explained as an emotional reaction as well as a sense of fear and anxiety that compels the individual to believe himself to be in a state of danger from the threat of crime (Lee, 2001; Pain, 2000; Stephen Farrall, Emily Gray, & Jackson, 2007). Therefore, crime prevention actions should be undertaken to reduce the incidences of crime as well as the fear of crime. This fear of crime was prominently mentioned by the Malaysian Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Dato' Sen Musa Dato' Hj Hassan (2008) in a forum entitled "Crime and Policing in Malaysia". According to the Inspector-General of Police, the fear of crime among the general public is high even though the crime rate is down (Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2008). This fear of crime issue was again mentioned as a critical issue in Malaysia when compared against the problem of actual crime itself by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Dato' Hadi bin Abdullah who is also the Deputy Director of Operations of the PDRM Investigation Department during the sixth "Crime and Policing in Malaysia" forum (Director of Criminal Investigation Department, 2010). The severity of this fear of crime problem has even grasped the attention of the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as evidently seen in the vision of his administration; "1 Malaysia: People First, Performance Now". The Prime Minister has given serious emphasis in handling the problem of decreasing the crime rate through his first target within the National Key Result Areas (NKRA) which is to reduce crime (AgendaDaily, 2009) by ensuring that street crimes diminish by 20 percent by the end of 2010 (Malaysiakini, 2009). As a result of this, the Safe City Programme Unit under the Urban and Rural Planning Department has conducted a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design seminar to achieve the first NKRA of reducing the crime rate (JPBD, 2010). This clearly shows that the Malaysian Government has adopted the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design approach in reducing the levels of crime as well as the fear of crime.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a concept that ensures crime prevention through the initial planning stages in an attempt to eliminate the opportunities for crimes to take place (Crowe & Zahm, 1994). CPTED has four elements, which are: (a) Territoriality, which can be defined as a concept of reinforcing the notion of proprietary concern as well as a 'sense of ownership' in legitimate users of space and thereby reducing the opportunities for offences to be committed by discouraging illegitimate users; (b) Surveillance, which is based on physical design which provides the capacity to promote informal or natural surveillance opportunities for residents and their agents, and as such, surveillance is considered to be part of capable guardianship. If offenders perceive that they can be observed, they may be less likely to offend, given the increased potential for intervention, apprehension and prosecution; (c) Maintenance and Target hardening, which promotes a positive image and routinely maintains the built environment to ensure that the physical environment continues to function effectively and transmits positive signals to all users. Installing elements of target hardening increases the efforts that offenders must expend in the commission of a crime; and the last element is; (d) Access Control

which is a concept of reducing opportunities for crime by denying access to potential targets and creating a heightened perception of risk in offenders.

However, the measurement of all these elements of CPTED within a research is still found to be somewhat limited (Hedayati, 2009; Minnery & Lim, 2005; Siti Rasidah & Aldrin, 2010). Most research only focus on one element of CPTED in the studies conducted (Clontz, 1995; P M Cozens, 2002; Crowe & Zahm, 1994; Jacobs, 1961; Liebermann & Kruger, 2004; Mohammad Abdul Mohit & Elsawahli, 2010; Newman, 1972; Shu, 1999). Meanwhile, in studies that incorporate all CPTED elements (Clontz, 1995; Hedayati, 2009; Minnery & Lim, 2005; Mohammad Abdul Mohit & Elsawahli, 2010; Robinson & Patricia, 1997) it was discovered that these studies only utilize the observation method alone.

Through a study conducted by Clontz (1995) which examined the effectiveness of CPTED elements towards home break-in crimes in residential and commercial areas within the city of Tallahassee, the capital of Florida, it was discovered that several CPTED elements such as image, surveillance and access control were able to reduce the occurrences of crime. The findings of the study support some of the CPTED principles. The concept of mixed-land use advocated by Jacobs (1961) did not prove to be an effective tool in crime prevention; on the contrary, it was the cause of increased burglaries. Meanwhile, Hedayati (2009) discovered that in a residential area located in Minden, Penang, Malaysia, CPTED elements such as territoriality, surveillance, maintenance and access control were unable to deter or reduce the fear of crime in that residential area. Hedayati (2009) opined that fear of crime is influenced more by other factors such as economic and social problems. The findings by Hedayati (2009) are consistent with those discovered by Minnery and Lim (2005) who conducted a study on CPTED elements in low and medium cost housing areas in the Australian Gold Coast. On the other hand, Mohammad Abdul Mohit and Elsawahli (2010) who examined CPTED elements in a residential area of terrace houses in Taman Melati, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, discovered that CPTED element such as surveillance were able to provide a sense of security and safety. At the same time, maintenance and management elements were discovered to be able to mitigate acts of crime. Nevertheless, the study results on the elements of access control and image did not find any correlation with the sense of security or safety. In a study by Robinson and Patricia (1997) at the York campus in Canada meanwhile, it was found that CPTED elements were successful in enabling the residents and occupants to have a sense of security. The findings and discoveries of all these studies clearly demonstrate that CPTED elements are able to significantly imbue a sense of security and safety.

However, these studies are found to be lacking in the measurement towards the behaviour and attitude of the respondents against the CPTED elements, from the respondents' perspective. This is based on the contention by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) who state that the actions of an individual towards a certain subject which exhibit his tendencies towards that subject in reacting consistently whether it involves positive action or vice versa. This aspect is considered to have a connection with attitude, belief and responsibility towards a certain subject. Therefore, the perception of the residents towards CPTED elements is vital to be taken into account in measuring CPTED as the respondents' scrutiny on the CPTED elements is believed to be able to determine the action or behaviour of the respondents in preventing crime.

Consequently, in this study, the measurement of perception towards CPTED elements in a residential area was conducted using only three CPTED elements, namely, territoriality, surveillance as well as maintenance and target hardening. The access control element was omitted from this study as this element uses physical elements such as fencing, padlock locking systems, alarm devices and others of the like which can be assessed using a checklist based on observation.

3. Methodology

This study involves two residential areas comprising of both gated residential area and non-gated residential area. The selection of the study area based on the gated element is based on the justification that the gated element is a physical element in access control and is important to be considered when choosing study areas. The gated element is believed to have a correlation with the sense of fear towards crime (Blakely & Synder, 1997; Suk, 2006). Besides this, previous research (Hedayati, 2009; Minnery & Lim, 2005) focused more on the type of residential areas in their selection of a study area. The concept of gated residences in this study is defined as a residential area which is fenced according to individual lots and has no control for access and egress to the housing area itself. Access and egress control is only within the individual lots and normally utilizes the fencing element or together with other security systems such as closed circuit television (CCTV), dogs and others. The definition used for gated residences in this study differs from the definition by Blakely and Synder (1997).

The selection of the non-gated residence characteristic was chosen before hand to rationalize and suit similar criteria with gated residences. This selection is adapted from the research by Wilson-Doenges (2000) which chose non-gated residential areas first, to be followed by the selection of the gated residences. This study uses the Wilson-Doenges (2000) as well as the Perkins, Wandersman, Rich dan Taylor (1993) criteria in selecting the residential area criteria, which are: (a) the size of the residential area which is based on a residential land lot size of at least 150 square metres; (b) a stable community where the residential area has to have been occupied for a period of 5 years; (c) ethnic or racial composition where 90 percent of the residents inhabiting the housing area have to be made of Bumiputera or from the Malay race; (d) house design of double storey terrace units; and (e) level of income; which could not be taken into consideration as the information was confidential. Based on these selected criteria, two residential areas were found to fulfil the criteria, which were a non-gated residential area in Precinct 9B, Putrajaya and a gated residential area in Section 4, Bandar Baru Bangi.

A population survey was conducted in both these residential areas as the total population was not large, consisting of only 476 residents. However, only 171 residents participated in the questionnaire survey. A face to face interview approach was conducted in this study to ensure that the respondents truly understood the questions that were asked of them. The respondents involved in this study comprised of home owners of the main breadwinners of the household. Therefore, either the husband or the wife was chosen to be the study respondents. This element is important as it involved the attitude and sense of responsibility towards their residential area. The survey was undertaken from Monday to Sunday, beginning from 9 am to 7 pm. Whenever the respondents could not be interview during working days, an appointment for the survey was made on weekends or on days as suggested by the respondents. The respondents required at least 30 to 40 minutes to comprehensively answer the questionnaires as stipulated by the duration required by Perkins et al., (1992). If the respondents were not found to be at home at the time of survey, a revisit was done at a different time and day. The maximum number of visits was set at 5 times, after which if the respondents were still unable to be interviewed, it was assumed that the respondents were not interested to participate in the questionnaire survey.

4. Result and discussions

The main objective of this working paper was to conduct validation on the perception construct towards the CPTED elements which consisted of the three dimensions of Territoriality, Surveillance as well as Maintenance and Target Hardening. Each of these dimension were comprised of 5 items to measure the respective dimension. The development of these items was based on previous research (Aldrin, 1999; Hedayati, 2009; Minnery & Lim, 2005; Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993). All

the items were measured using interval data within a Likert scale that was comprised of 8 answer choices of (1) extremely disagree to (8) extremely agree (Alreck & Settle, 2004). The validation the perception construct towards the CPTED elements were done by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS and SPSS software. CFA is a measurement model which is developed by the correlation between latent variables and several indicators (items) or known as variable and error manifests. The CFA method is able to ensure and validate the items used in measuring latent variables by taking into account the value of the variances as opposed to the factor analysis (FA) which only explores an item and suggests a factor for each of the items. According to Joreskog and Sorbom (1993), the evaluation of the measurement model is done by assessing the quality of the items for each construct individually (or known as the congeneric model) and followed by retesting the constructs simultaneously, which is known as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Using Bentler's (1995) suggestion, an appropriate number of samples (N=171>150) gives reasonable weightage to use CFA in order to establish a confirmatory test.

The measurement model for each construct of the CPTED elements which are Territoriality, Surveillance and Maintenance and Target Hardening was developed as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig.1. A first-order CFA model for CPTED elements construct

Fig. 1 demonstrates the measurement model which is comprised of one latent variable (Territoriality) which is measured by five items (Item 1 to Item 5) and each item has its own measurement error. The quality of each item that develops this construct is determined by the factor loading as symbolized by 1. Factor loading imparts information about the total number of variances contributed by each item towards the measure construct and the factor loading value of 0.30 (Sellin & Keeves, 1997) is used as a cut-off value to determine the suitability of the item in measuring the latent variable. Apart from the factor loading value, several indices were employed to judge whether the model tested fits to the data, such as Chi-square, Chi-square/degree of freedom ratio, and goodness of fit indices. AMOS provides a variety of fit indices and this study employs the goodness of fit indices as suggested by Hair, Black, Babin dan Anderson (2006) such as Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI). According to Hair et al. (2006), the value of GFI, NFI, CFI and TLI of 0.9 and above show a well fitted model. As for RMSEA, a value of between 0.03 and 0.08 is considered to be good.

The results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the first-order illustrated that two models have achieved good fit between the models and the data, which are the measurement models for Territoriality and Surveillance. The Chi-square value (X2) for the Territoriality measurement model is not

significant (X2(2)=1.342, p>0.05) and shows good fit between model and data. The values for the fit indices of GFI, CFI and TLI on the other hand exceed 0.90 and the RMSEA value is less than 0.05. The values further strengthen the fit of this measurement model against the data (Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). It is a similar finding for the Surveillance measurement model, where the Chi-square (X2) value is also not significant (X2(1)=.004, p>0.05) thus showing good fit between model and data. The goodness of fit indices of GFI, CFI and TLI also recorded a value above 0.90 and the RMSEA value is less than 0.05 (0.000). These findings point to a goodness of fit between the model and the collected data. In addition to this, the Maintenance and Target Hardening measurement model only achieved the 'just-identified' level as the degree of freedom is equal to zero due to the same number of data as the number of parameters assumed in this model. Several items were eliminated as they possess a factor loading value of less than 0.03 (Sellin & Keeves, 1997).

Meanwhile, the level of reliability was determined through the internal consistency for each factor that was determined by calculating the Cronbach's Alpha value as shown in Table 1. Table 1 reports that the Territoriality dimension has an alpha value of 0.75, the Surveillance dimension has a value of 0.74 and the Maintenance and Target Hardening dimension has an alpha value of 0.60. This shows that all three dimensions have a good reliability value as the Cronbach's Alpha value exceeds 0.60 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Table 1. Results of the perception factor measurement model against the CPTED element variables

CPTED dimension Items Description of Items Factor Loading Reliability

Territoriality Item 1 I always ensure that the compound of my house is constantly clean 0.75

Item 2 I do not like people loitering about in front of my house compound 0.66

Item 3 I am able to recognize strangers passing by in front of my house -

Item 4 I am always on the lookout for strangers passing by in front of my house 0.58 0.75

Item 5 I feel I am responsible towards the surroundings of my house 0.66

Surveillance Item 1 I frequently inspect outside my house to monitor my house surroundings 0.81

Item 2 I immediately inspect the external surroundings whenever I overhear loud or suspicious noises 0.75

Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 I can clearly see the external surrounding areas even when I am inside the house I am frequently on the lookout for strangers even when I am inside my house I immediately call the police/community when there are occurrences of suspicious activity in this housing estate/area 0.72 0.30 0.74

Maintenance Item 1 I switch on the lights outside my house at night 0.86

& Target Hardening Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 When the external paint of my house fades, I immediately repaint it I immediately repair the doors/windows of my house when they become defective I tend and maintain the plants within the compound of my house at least every week I have installed security systems in this house such as panel key locks/alarms 0.50 0.41 0.60

Note: ( - ) = Items eliminated through the measurement model process

The findings from the first-order measurement model for every latent variable for the CPTED perception construct was used in the second-order model. In this second-order model, CPTED acts as a latent variable measure by the three dimensions as the first order factor which become the observed variables for the CPTED. The CFA was then employed in this study to examine whether the extracted factor structure that had been defined by a hypothesis model fitted the data adequately. The goodness of fit indices (GOF) such as GFI, CFI and TLI of at least 0.9 and above and a RMSEA value of less than 0.06 (Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006) was used to ensure fitness of data. The hypotheses second-order model is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig.2. A priori hypotheses second-order model

The final result of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is shown in Figure 3, and GOF indicates that the Chi-square (X2) value is not significant (X2(23)=33.691, p>0.05), and Chi-square/df=1.464. In the model fit, the findings further show that RMSEA=0.05, CFI=0.97, TLI=0.95, and GFI= 0.95 which indicate that the model fitted the data very well. The second-order model indicates that the Maintenance and Target Hardening variable was best measured by two indicators namely Item 1 and Item 4, Surveillance was extracted by 4 items namely Items 1, 2, 4, and 5, while the Territoriality variable was measured by three indicators namely Items 1, 2 and 4. The CPTED perception is found to be best measured by three dimensions namely Territoriality, Surveillance and Maintenance and Target Hardening. In Fig. 3, the double-headed arrow is used to imply covariance between two measurement variables which is based on the modification indices, and the level of covariance between two errors namely e6 and e2 is discovered to be high. It implies that Item 4 (fl.n) error in the Surveillance variable was highly correlated with that associated with the measurement error of Item 4 (fl.d) in the Territoriality variable. Based on the Standardized coefficients between latent variables and the CPTED construct, it is revealed that the Surveillance (r= 0.76) dimension represented CPTED better than the other two dimensions (Territoriality; r=0.73, Maintenance & Target Hardening; r=0.65).

Fig.3. A second-order CFA model of perception on CPTED

5. Conclusions

Preventing crime within residential areas. Research conducted previously were only found to focus more on the practices towards CPTED (Hedayati, 2009; Minnery & Lim, 2005) and only Siti Rasidah and Aldrin (2010) have conducted a pilot study towards CPTED perception in residential areas. As a result, Siti Rasidah and Aldrin (2010) discovered that there is a significant deficiency in terms of CPTED measurement if residents' attitude, responsibility, belief and actions towards CPTED elements were not taken into consideration. Apart from this, in the aspect of assessing the perception towards CPTED, most research have only employed factor analysis (FA) and reliability tests alone (Siti Rasidah & Aldrin, 2010). As such, these studies were unable to validate the items in measuring the CPTED dimension. Therefore, this study is a continuation of the initial study by Siti Rasidah and Aldrin (2010); and undertakes to validate the perception construct of CPTED by utilizing the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

The findings of this study indicate that CPTED can be best measured using three domains namely Territoriality, Surveillance and Maintenance & Target Hardening. The results show that in measuring the Territoriality variable, even though there are initially four indicators, only three indicators actually worked in the analysis and one of them were eliminated from the study. The Maintenance & Target Hardening dimension was measured by two indicators and one of them were eliminated while the Surveillance variable was measured by four indicators.

Acknowledgements

In realizing this study, the researchers would like to thank the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM), the Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation (MCPF), the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) as well as the Urban and Rural Planning Department (JPBD) in giving their fullest cooperation and support towards the success of this study. The researchers would also like to acknowledge and thank the UiTM education scholarship administrators for endowing and sponsoring the study programme under the doctoral scheme and the Institute of Postgraduate Studies (IPS) in USM for providing a graduate research grant to assist in

the undertaking of this study. A special thanks is also accorded to all the respective residents within the study areas for their invaluable cooperation.

References

Aldrin, A. (1999). Crime Landscape: The Relationship Of Victimisation And Fear Of Crime With Residents' Territorial Functioning In High And Low Crime Rate Estate In Sheffield University Of Sheffield, U.K.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook (3rd Ed.): Mcgraw-Hill Irwin.

Anastasia, L.-S., & John, E. E. (2007). Crime Prevention And Active Living American Journal Of Health Promotion, 21(4), 380389.

Andresen, M. A., & Jenion, G. W. (2008). Crime Prevention And The Science Of Where People Are. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(2), 164-180.

Bennet, T., Holloway, K., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Does Neighborhood Watch Reduce Crime? A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. Journal Of Experimental Criminology, 2, 437-458.

Birkbeck, C., & Lafree, G. (1993). The Situational Analysis Of Crime And Deviance. Annu. Rev. Social, 19, 113-137.

Blakely, & Synder. (1997). Fortress America Gated Communities In The United States. Washington D. C: Brookings Institution Press.

Brantingham, & Brantingham. (1993). Nodes, Paths And Edges: Considerations On The Complexity Of Crime And The Physical Environment. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 13(1), 3-28.

Brantingham, & Brantingham. (2005). Situational Crime Prevention As A Key Component In Embedded Crime Prevention. Canadian Journal Of Criminology And Criminal Justice, 271-288.

Bynum, T. S., & Purri, D. M. (1984). Crime And Architectural Style: An Examination Of The Environmental Design Hypothesis. Criminal Justice And Behavior, 11(2), 179-196.

Clontz, K. A. (1995). Residential And Commercial Burglaries: An Empirical Test Of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Florida State University.

Cozens, P. M. (2002). Sustainable Urban Development And Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design The British City. Towards An Effective Urban Environmentalism For The 21st Century. Elsevier Science Ltd., 19(2), 129-137.

Cozens, P. M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review And Modern Bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328-356.

Crowe, T., & Zahm, D. (1994). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. NAHB Land Development Magazine, 22.

Dantzker, M. L., & Robinson, D. M. (2002). Perspectives On Crime Prevention A Capstone View. In D. M. Robinson (Ed.), Policing And Crime Prevention United States: Pearson Education, Inc.

Director Of Criminal Investigation Department. (2010). Realities And Challenges In Criminal Investigation For The Criminal Investigation Department, Polis Diraja Malaysia. Paper Presented At The Conference Name|. Retrieved Access Date|. From URL|.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention And Behavior: An Introduction To Theory And Research. United States, America: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Hedayati, M. M. (2009). Perception Of Crime And An Assessment Of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Elements In A Housing Area: A Case Study Of Minden Heights In Penang. University Science Malaysia, Pulau Pinang.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death And Life Of Great American Cities. New York: : Random House.

Lee, M. (2001). The Genesis Of 'Fear Of Crime'. Theoretical Criminology, 5, 467-485.

Liebermann, S., & Kruger, T. (2004). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Paper Presented At The Conference Name|. Retrieved Access Date|. From URL|.

Minnery, J. R., & Lim, B. (2005). Measuring Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Journal Of Architectural And Planinng Research, 22(4), 330-341.

Mohammad Abdul Mohit, & Elsawahli, H. M. H. (2010). Crime And Housing In Malaysia: Case Study Of Taman Melati Terrace Housing In Kuala Lumpur. Asian Journal Of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 1(3), 26-36.

Nasar, & Jones. (1997). Landscapes Of Fear And Stress. Environment And Behavior, 29(3), 291-323.

Newman, O. (1972). Crime Prevention Through Urban Design Defensible Space. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.

Pain, R. (2000). Place, Social Relations And The Fear Of Crime: A Review. Progress In Human Geography, 24(3), 365-387.

Perkins, D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The Physical Environment Of Street Crime: Defensible Space, Territoriality And Incivilities. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 13(1).

Robinson, & Patricia. (1997). Places Of Crime & Designing For Prevention: A Study Of York University Campus. North York, Ontario: York University.

Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting Structural Equation Modeling And Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal Of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-337.

Sellin, N., & Keeves, J. P. (1997). Path Analysis With Latent Variables. In J P Keeves (Ed.), Educational Research, Methdology And Measurement: An International Handbook Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Shu, S. C.-F. (1999). Housing Layout And Crime Vulnerability. Paper Presented At The Space Syntax Second International Symposium Brasilia.

Simons, C. F. (2002). The Evolution Of Crime Prevention. In D. M. Robinson (Ed.), Policing And Crime Prevention. United States: Pearson Education, Inc.

Siti Rasidah, M. S., & Aldrin, A. (2010). Measuring Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design In A Gated Residential Area: A Pilot Survey. Paper Presented At The Asean Conference On Environment-Behaviour Studies, Riverside Majestic Hotel, Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia.

Stephen Farrall, Emily Gray, & Jackson, J. (2007). Theorising The Fear Of Crime: The Cultural And Social Significance Of

Insecurities About Crime, Experience And Expression In The Fear Of Crime, Working Paper No. 5, : Institute Of Law, Politics And Justice, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, & Methodology Institute, London School Of Economics, Houghton Street, London.

Suk, K. K. (2006). The Gated Community: Resident's Crime Experience And Perception Of Safety Behind Gated And Fences In The Urban Area. Texas, A&M University.

Syarmila Hany, H. (2008). The Relationship Between Territorial Functioning And Victimisation, Fear Of Crime, Neighbourhood Watch And Ethnic Relations: A Case Study Of Subang Jaya Housing Scheme. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.

Taylor, R. B., & Harrel, A. V. (1996). Physical Environment And Crime. United State: U.S Department Of Justice.

USM. (2008). "Contemporary Issues And Challenges For Polis Diraja Malaysia". Paper Presented At The Conference Name|. Retrieved Access Date|. From URL|.

Welsh, B. C., & Hoshi, A. (2002). Communities And Crime Prevention. In Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. New York: Routledge.