Program Profile: Street Lighting in Stoke-on-Trent (England)

This program upgrades street lighting on residential roads and footpaths to decrease crime and fear of crime. This program is rated Effective. In the experimental area, there were statistically significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence rates of crime and in the percentage of respondents who knew a victim, compared with the control area.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goal/Target Population

Street lighting in Stoke-on-Trent, England, was upgraded in a residential area to see if crime, fear of crime, and resident perceptions would be affected.

The area selected for relighting was identified by the local council on the basis of perceived need. The program targeted residents living, and people with criminal intent operating, on poorly lit estates. Targeted behaviors included increasing surveillance through increased pedestrian presence on the street, reducing offences through increased perception of risk by those with criminal intent, and increasing care-taking of the area through improved community spirit.

Program Components

The key components of the program were the provision of lighting and lighting columns to provide luminosity that conformed to government set standards (BS 5489, Part 3). The lighting that was replaced did not even meet the minimum standard of the lowest of three lighting-standards categories. As a result, the new lighting created a fivefold increase in the amount of useful light.

From mid-December 1992 through mid-January 1993, domestic-type tungsten lamps were replaced by 110 high-pressure sodium street lights, which were installed over 1,000 meters of residential roadway at intervals of approximately 38 meters. Lighting was also installed on detached footpaths. The new lighting provided an average illuminance of 6 lux, with a minimum of 2.5 lux provided. The new installation almost doubled maintenance and energy costs.

Program Theory

The theory behind how and why street lighting works is comprehensively spelled out by situational crime prevention as well as crime prevention through environmental design (or CPTED). Specifically, increased lighting increases risks of getting caught committing a crime by increasing the likelihood of detection, both by formal surveillance systems and through natural surveillance. It also reduces the anonymity of those committing a crime and increases risk of apprehension through facial identification. Street lighting can signal important investment in an area, which can strengthen informal social control and community cohesion.

Study

Painter and Farrington (1999) used a quasi-experimental design with a nonequivalent control area to assess the effect of improved street lighting on crime in Stoke-on-Trent, North Midlands, in England. The experimental area was selected for relighting by the council on the basis of perceived need. There were no discernible boundaries between the treatment area and the adjacent area. The control area was adjacent to the treatment area but was separated by traffic arteries. The selection of treatment and control areas was guided by comparability, and assessments were made to determine if and how areas were comparable on multiple variables.

The researchers conducted victimization surveys in the experimental, adjacent, and control areas, which measured prevalence and incidence of crime 12 months before (October to mid-November 1992) and 12 months after (mid-November to mid-December 1993) installation, which took place between December 1992 and mid-January 1993. The surveys also measured residents’ perceptions, attitudes, and behavior. The majority of questions were similar to those used in the British Crime Surveys. The sampling frame for the study was the electoral register for the experimental, adjacent, and control areas.

There were 317 participants from the experimental area for the preimplementation survey, which fell to 278 (88 percent) at the follow-up survey. One section of the control area was dropped from the analysis due to extensive renovations in that area. Excluding that area, 88 interviews were completed in the control area, as well as 135 in the adjacent area. The follow-up response rate was 90 percent (121 out of 135) in the adjacent area and 92 percent (81 out of 88) in the control area. The relatively small sample size in the adjacent and control areas meant that changes in variables between the “before” and “after” survey needed to be quite large in order to be statistically significant.

The surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews with residents that lasted 45 to 90 minutes. To reduce potential bias, interviewers were not informed of the lighting project or that there were control/treatment areas.

A cost–benefit analysis showed benefits from this program. The annual costs (over 20 years) after the improvements were calculated at £8,952. The researchers calculated the total savings from crime prevention at approximately £103,495 per year. Thus, capital costs alone were covered in the 1st year in savings from crime reductions. Including the full capital cost, the benefit-to-cost ratio for the first year was 1.3 to 1. Paying off the capital cost over 20 years, the benefit-to-cost ratio was 12 to 1 after 1 year. These calculations do not take into the account the benefits accrued from the diffusion of benefits (that is, crimes prevented in areas adjacent to the experimental area). Taking these savings into account, the 1-year benefit-to-cost ratio was 2.9 to 1; the 20-year ratio was 26 to 1.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Painter, Kate, and David P. Farrington. 1999. “Improved Street Lighting: Crime-Reducing Effects and Cost–Benefit Analyses.” Security Journal 12(4):17–32.