**2. Literature Review**

### *2.1. Prevention of Crime and Fear of Crime in Theory*

Criminal act is a frequent outcome of interaction between criminally motivated individuals and opportunities for crime [15] (p. xiv). Offenders' motives are considered the root causes of crime, while opportunity refers to the chance afforded to potential offenders to commit crime. Thus, to decrease crime rates, the most effective strategies incorporate the reduction of both motive and opportunity [16]. Broadly, three methods of accomplishing both these tasks have been outlined in the literature. The traditional and earliest strategy involved the threat of arrest and sanction: penal systems in which laws were enforced, and police actions to bring suspects into the courts for judgement and sentencing procedures. The second method focuses on reducing opportunities and possibilities for criminal acts, whereby city authorities prioritize measures involving environmental design. Thirdly, beyond enforcement and environmental design, alternative motive reduction programs have been introduced covering a range of topics such as education, literacy enhancement, problem-based learning (PBL), conflict resolution, youth mentoring, personal development exercises, job creation, and economic revitalization. Related courses have included parenting and self-confidence skills, emotional intelligence and anger managemen<sup>t</sup> training, and technical skills acquisition. Under the scope of safe city studies and the responsibility of city authorities, the authors will mainly discuss crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and social development (CPSD).

As a place-based crime prevention strategy, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) has been promoted since the initial ideas by [17], followed by [18] on defensible space, and consequently formally coined by [19]. This phase is considered as the development of the first generation of CPTED, which draws on environmental and behavioral psychology and consists of seven principles, namely territoriality, natural surveillance, access control, target hardening, legitimate activity support, space managemen<sup>t</sup> and image, and the influence of geographical juxtaposition [20]. The second generation of CPTED, as promoted by [16,21,22], has added the social aspect of the community, including social cohesion and collective e fficacy, in response to criticisms that CPTED was physically deterministic and ignored essential social elements. The importance of social cohesion and collective efficacy has further illustrated in various perspectives and links to crime prevention and fear of crime by scholars such as [23–26].

According to [5], the social aspect in the second generation of CPTED includes an environmental design that suits the human scale and pedestrian-oriented land uses and activities, urban meeting places, resident participation, community culture, neighborhood capacity, community connectivity, inclusion, and identity. Among these elements, the primary concern is on community participation in the self-policing of neighborhoods. These concepts are mainly derived from "eyes on the street" by [27], which recognizes the importance of community "eyes" and their value in promoting the sense of a "caring community." Further, a study by [28] suggested that environmental designs should consider pedestrian density when designing public spaces and impact the perceived fear of crime among those who use such spaces. In recent developments, another attempt has been made to establish the third generation of CPTED through the theory related to human needs (such as [6,29]). However, these are still in early conceptual discussions and require further empirical testing.

Meanwhile, the strategy of crime prevention through social development (CPSD) arguably overlaps with the second and the proposed third generations of CPTED, except that CPSD is motive reduction-oriented [16]. CPSD recognizes the underlying complicated social, economic, and cultural processes that encourage crime and create an atmosphere of fear of crime [29,30]. CPSD attempts to bridge the gap between criminal justice programs and social support for communities, families, and individuals by preventing the causes that allow crime and victimization to happen. In other words, CPSD refers to social programs designed to solve the fundamental causes of crime: poverty, homelessness, inadequate parenting, issues with individual personality and behavior, poor education, harmful peer associations, unemployment, substance abuse, cultural conflict, family dysfunction, social alienation, and unequal distribution of resources [31,32]. In short, most of the CPSD programs are long-term, large scale strategies and criticized by [29] as not suitable for short term policies and implementations.

To clarify this concept, the authors maintain that only one type of CPTED focuses on environmentally related designs for crime prevention, while the second and third generations of CPTED are actually variations of CPSD which mainly refer to social programs or meetings, and which expand upon CPTED (see example cases of Reno in Nevada, New Haven in Connecticut, San Romanoway in Toronto, the suburb of Eagleby in Queensland, Australia, the aboriginal youth project in the Kimberly region of Western Australia, as in [16]). CPTED prioritizes territoriality control, while CPSD focuses on building social cohesion in specific community contexts. Thus, in this study, initiatives beyond those related to environmental design strategies, such as community policing, are regarded as CPSD initiatives.

Literature on crime prevention strategies from around the globe also reveals evidence that the effectiveness of such methods has encountered both support and criticism. Reference [33] reviewed CCTV surveillance used for crime prevention and concluded that CCTV is associated with both significant and modest decreases in crime. Reference [23] investigated seven U.S. cities (Denver, CO; Des Moines, IA; Indianapolis, IN; Louisville, KY; Providence, RI; San Antonio, TX; and Seattle/White Center, WA) and indicated a positive relationship between perceived social cohesion and informal means of social control in urban neighborhoods. Using data from the Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Survey, ref [26] critiqued its collective efficacy with the intention of expanding its scope into informing community-based practice. In studying 10 island cases of Cape Verde, West Africa, ref [34] suggested the principles of CPTED should consider neighborhood rehabilitation or design from an early stage. After researching the nature of crime in Nigeria, ref [35] confirmed that crime prevention measures assisted in the continued decline of crime rates. However, ref [35] also observed and reported the emergence of an unprecedented range of crimes, such as human trafficking, kidnapping, abduction, drug sales, thuggery, and terrorism, all recent developments whose intensity has multiplied since 2000 when Nigeria became a democracy. Despite their imperfections, these crime prevention methods are improvements on those which simply ignore safety concerns [36].

From a theoretical perspective, these crime prevention methods are derived from environmental criminal/crime opportunity theories, such as routine activities theory, broken windows theory, rational choice theory, crime pattern theory, and awareness theory [15,37]. The key aspect of environmental criminology is assessing the pattern of crimes, especially in urban areas. It measures how emotion-led behavior is influenced by external factors. These comprise several shifting aspects: spatial/geographical, temporal, and legal. Variables also include the offender, the victim, and the guardian [37]. In this study, the authors selected the two most cited and seminal crime opportunity theories for discussion, namely the routine activities theory by [2] and the broken windows theory by [38].

The arguments of routine activities theory are derived from crime observations and socio-economic statistics trends linked to the theory of human ecology by [39]. Following [39], three important temporal components of community structure—rhythm, representing the actors, namely the offender, victim, and guardian; tempo, representing violation events; and timing, representing the right timing that prompts an event to occur—form the everyday routine activities linked by [2]. This understanding of how spatial-temporal trends and fluctuations in social conditions or crime rates can be constructed and further explored locally helps to improve the Safe City Program in Malaysia. For example, in a specific spatial and temporal structure of routine activities, crime events are most likely to happen in specific patterns. Therefore, one can identify the exact location, type, and quantity of illegal events and educate potential victims and potential guardians in a given society or community. Hence, the timing of work, schooling, and leisure may be of central importance in explaining crime rates [2].

Based on an analysis of longitudinal aggregated data for the United States throughout 1947–1974, Cohen and Felson concluded that household activities were a more significant and positive factor in explaining the official change in crime rates involving homicide, rape, and assault, as compared to age structure (i.e., 15–24 years old) and unemployment rate. Household activities refer to marital status attributes, such as has never been married, married, separated/divorced, or widowed. The separated/divorced status variable showed the highest link to being a victim/crime occurrence, while the married status variable showed the least likelihood of being a victim/crime occurrence. However, over the past 40 years, changes may have occurred, and whether someone is single or married may have a different impact in contemporary society. Somehow, in Malaysia, the authors noticed that the Federal Department of Town and Country Planning (FDTCP) has never zoomed into this household activities factor in drafting strategies for the Safe City Program. Perhaps, this gap provides an opportunity for future research in Malaysia to include collecting and analyzing longitudinal data of such household structures or activities and suggests more locational or temporal specific solutions to local contexts.

Among the three actors—o ffenders, victims, and guardians—[2] explained that the "guardians" concept includes the "third eyes of the public." This "guardians" concept has been adopted in some safe city program strategies, including allowing the conduct of informal activities, such as merchants selling burgers in parks or public spaces or making the sides of pedestrian bridges visible to the public. Indirectly, increasing the public's eyes as guardians can prevent the occurrence of illegal or unlawful activities. Nevertheless, further research is required to answer whether these guardians are "capable" of preventing crime from happening. Among the three elements that assist in understanding crime rates, namely motivated o ffenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians, ref [2] argued that criminologists could have underemphasized the targets and guardians while entirely focusing on the o ffenders. The authors agree with the argumen<sup>t</sup> by [2] and sugges<sup>t</sup> that relevant authorities should look at the perspectives of the targets and guardians in order to curb crimes, and doing so requires zooming into the social routine activities factor. This method is identified as CPSD. It requires a longer time and more investment of resources than CPTED or penal control in the forms of law, punishments, and regulations, which are short-term solutions that mainly focus on o ffenders' behavior [29]. The supporting argumen<sup>t</sup> for CPSD is that its results could be multiplicative rather than additive, unlike the CPTED strategies.

In the Malaysian context, the authors notice that among the 23 steps of the Safe City Program, the prime focus is on altering the physical environment to reduce the likelihood of o ffenders committing crimes. Indirectly, the focus is on protecting potential targets from becoming crime victims. For the guardians, the focus is mostly on the police force's role in setting up police kiosks in neighborhoods, conducting foot-patrol, encouraging community policing activities, and setting up CCTVs as a form of a digital guardian. Other capable guardians, such as the head of the family, are not included as part of the 23 strategies of the Safe City Program. Therefore, while the authors see a gap that the FDTCP guidelines do not consider the role of the "guardians" and changes in social structure, it is noted that these elements could be seen discursively in the initiatives taken by other governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies.

The second theory adopted in this paper is the broken windows theory. This theory is based on the proposition that small issues should be handled carefully rather than letting them happen and creating significant future problems. Reference [38] has posited that disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked at the community level. Thus, everything, including the environment, should be kept to help reduce crime and the fear of crime. Disorder, e.g., the unattended property, is a fair game for people who are out for fun or to plunder, as it carries a "no one cares" signal [40]. Thus, minor vandalism may begin and culminate in significant destructions. Disorder indicates that untended behaviors will likely lead to the breakdown of community controls. Vandalism occurs once communal barriers, i.e., a sense of mutual regard and civility obligations, are lowered by actions that seem to signal that no one cares.

Reference [38] mentioned that "foot patrolling" by police o fficers, while not having been proven to reduce the crime rates, has reduced the fear of crime, and improved trust in the police force, thus enhancing the police-citizens relationship. Due to the close contact between police o fficers and local residents, the "regulars", such as panhandlers, loiterers, and some strangers, would understand and agree that there are hidden "informal rules" to be observed by all parties, which will maintain order in the neighborhood. These informal rules form part of the custom of the local residents even without legal backing. This order maintenance would reduce the fear of crime and make it possible to integrate social cohesion in the community [41].

As explained by [38], social order maintenance is partly the role of the police o fficers in maintaining the local order in extension to fighting crime. People will have a good impression if they frequently meet the police o fficers on the street. However, suppose the police o fficers always arrive in a police car (i.e., motorized-patrol o fficers). In that case, people tend to have a negative impression that they are "acting" and not sincere in preventing or solving crime and helping the victims. Therefore, there is a relationship between crime prevention and order maintenance. This order maintenance has hidden, informal rules

abided by the regulars, and it is viewed as "community relations building" activities that happen on the ground. It indirectly builds trust in the police force and boosts their image. This approach could be applied in the Safe City Program in Malaysia by involving police o fficers in frequent foot-patrolling activities and manning the police station or patrolling in vehicles. Another practice to learn from the broken windows theory is promoting community policing projects that benefit the police-citizen relationship. This is a form of informal social control mechanism, and it is suitable for building trust and developing better local order maintenance rules in Malaysia.

### *2.2. Formulating the Factors of a Safe City Program in Malaysia*

According to the Royal Malaysia Police (RMP), the crime index rose significantly from 1980 to 2009. The worst index was recorded in 2007, in which RM2.04 billion was allocated for crime prevention programs in Malaysia [42]. After the March 2008 elections in Malaysia, the Federal Government, through its Government Transformation Program, took measures to address the people's demand for a safer environment urgently. In 2009, the Safe City Program was formally included in the Malaysia Government Transformation Program as one of the strategies under the National Key Results Areas (NKRAs). The Reducing Crime NKRA (CRI NKRA) was implemented to address public safety issues concerning crime and policing [43]. Two National Key Performance Indicators (NKPIs) were identified under the CRI NKRA, namely "reducing street crime through a safe city program" and "crime prevention through environmental design" [11].

Through the National Urban Policy, the Malaysian governmen<sup>t</sup> has defined a safe city as "an integrated program to the creation of cities where the population is free from all physical, social, and mental treats" [44]. The safe city features that have been determined for crime prevention are environmental design, the roles of safety-related agencies such as the police force, and community development. In December 2009, the Safe City Program was redefined into three main strategies consisting of 15 steps from the 23 crime prevention measures in the first version that was introduced in 2004 [11]. This exercise was done after considering the e ffectiveness of the initiative at the local authority level as well as opinions of the Ministry of Home A ffairs, the RMP, State Town and Country Planning Department, and members of the Crime Lab (NKRA). Academic studies on the Safe City Program in Malaysia have flourished since 2004. Most of the studies rate the e ffectiveness of the program as between intermediate and low, as well as highlighting citizens' perceptions on relying on the governmen<sup>t</sup> as the party responsible for curbing crimes; undeniably, more e fforts are needed to promote community participation, including community policing activities [45–47].

Following the review of the safe city programs that were launched in Malaysia in 2004 and 2009, and understanding on main actors in crime and fear prevention theories, the authors found these factors can be primarily grouped under the two main categories of CPTED and CPSD, and further divided into seven sub-categories and 27 indicators (Table 1). Under the category of CPTED, all factors are solely related to the role of the actor of guardian, i.e., the authorities, and none were related to the actors of victims and o ffenders. Under such grouping, four sub-categories derived included (a) real barriers design initiatives, (b) symbolic barriers design initiatives, (c) Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and mechanical surveillance design initiatives, and (d) image and human activities' legitimacy initiatives. On the other hand, under the category of CPSD, the prevention factors are under the role of the guardians (authorities) and potential victims/communities (engagement). Only one sub-category was derived under the role of guardians, such as the management's legitimacy. In contrast, two sub-categories were found under the community's role, such as community involvement and public awareness factors.


**Table 1.** Factors in a Safe City Program (source: items were derived from the Safe City Program (SCP) year 2004 and 2009 in Malaysia and regrouped with the insights from [2,5,16,38,48]).


**Table 1.** *Cont.*

Note: CBD stands for central business district, CCTV stands for closed-circuit television, CPTED stands for crime prevention through environmental design, CPSD stands for crime prevention methods through social development, GIS stands for geographic information system, ICT stands for information and communication technology, and SCP stands for safe city program.

### *2.3. A holistic Safe City Thesis*

The authors have attempted to form a holistic safe city program thesis (Figure 2). In this thesis, the safe city program has the objectives of reducing crime that affects either individual victims or subjects such as properties, as well as the fear of crime.

**Figure 2.** A holistic safe city thesis (source: authors).

The three major actors of likely o ffenders, suitable victims, and capable guardians posited by [2] form the foundation of this thesis's implicit concern. Subject to the right convergence of time and space, the prospective o ffenders could break the social order maintenance and commit crimes against the suitable victim(s) or properties such as a house. Whether the crime has happened or is likely to happen creates societal signals, mainly a phobic ambiance to the people living close to the crime scene. These decent people who are likely to turn into victims are exposed to the feeling of fear of crime, resulting in a drop of public confidence in the sense of safety. Within this cycle, the third-party guardians such as the police, head of household and community, local authorities, and other "public eyes", among others, play crucial roles in guarding against these disorders and incivility acts. Moreover, as posited by [38], the guardians and all society members should act fast on the "broken windows" or signs that criminal cases are left unattended to prevent further deterioration from occurring, which might culminate in an immense tragedy. Fear and crime are interconnected, since o ffenders can create and determine fear of crime, while victims can indirectly influence crime. Among the preventive measures suggested by [5], preventions through environmental design (CPTED) and social development (CPSD) are highlighted as suitable acts for curbing crime and the fear of crime.

### *2.4. Sustainability of Safe City Planning*

Safety is an inherent feature in the creation of sustainable built-up environments. This was clearly stated in the United Nations (UN) policy New Urban Agenda (NUA), which advocated "creating safe, resilient, sustainable and inclusive cities" [49]. Meanwhile, the 11th Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for 2015–2030 stated that the aim was to "make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable" [50]. Further evidence has identified safety as a continuous and significant indicator of a smart sustainable city when quality of life is measured [51–61].

The concept of safety is the ontological foundation of general and specific social sustainability [62]. In other words, under the umbrella of the sustainability concept, a socially safe environment is essential for existing and future generations. Without such an environment, cities, urban spaces, and streets will be unable to sustain human life. People would constantly migrate from those unsafe environments, cities, or particular streets. By extension, to sustain life, people have the right to not only remain safe but also adopt any measures such as safe city planning directed towards adaptation and security. Safety issues such as crime are framed as social problems of sustainability [36,63]. To investigate the aspect of sustaining urban security, the authors of this study attempted to ascertain the factors of fear and of crime prevention.
