American Academy of Political and Social Science

Research Summary:The present study assessed the comparative effectiveness of two forms of surveillance in preventing crime in public space: formal surveillance, in the form of closed‐circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras, and natural surveillance, in the form of improved street lighting. Based on the highest quality available research evidence on these two measures—from systematic reviews incorporating meta‐analytic techniques—it was found that they are equally effective in reducing crime. More detailed analyses showed that improved street lighting was more effective in reducing crime in city centers, that both were more effective in reducing property crimes than violent crimes, and that both measures were far more effective in reducing crime in Britain than in America.Policy Implications:The results of this study lend support for the continued use of CCTV and improved street lighting to reduce crime, but they suggest that they need to be targeted more narrowly on property crimes. A policy that combines the two interventions may produce a greater yield in reduced crime rates, but this may be limited to vehicle crimes in car parks. Improved street lighting is an effective form of surveillance to reduce crime in public space, and it may attract less public resistance than CCTV surveillance cameras (in America at least). Lessons from the British studies to help improve the effectiveness of the two measures in America are explored.