Human-Environment Research Laboratory
Home of Kuo & Sullivan (researchers that have proposed that increasing amounts of vegetation can decrease crime)

Shared History
The "roots" of CPTED  and urban forestry can be traced to the mid-1960s when President Johnson initiated a number of commissions and taskforces to study urban issues. Since that time both movements have remained largely unappreciated and misunderstood. 

During the mid-1960s a number of researchers were beginning to explore the relationship between disorder and crime in response to President Johnson's initiation of a Commission related to Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice concerning society’s response to crime.  A thorough examination of how disorderly conditions can lead to fear of crime in neighborhoods and the community was included in Albert Biderman’s report to the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Crime in 1967 (Hershkoff, 1993).  Additional research backing the link between disorder, fear, crime, and urban decay is summarized in a book by Skogan (1990).

President Johnson initiated a task force on natural beauty and one member of this task force, Whyte (1965), proposed a landscape-townscape program that was eventually included as a provision in the Housing Act of 1965. The Department of Housing and Urban Development modified Whyte’s original provision and titled it “Urban Beautification.” This program provided 50 percent matching grants for landscaping and beautification efforts for communities. This money went directly to local governments, bypassing state governments. In 1978, Congress recognized that urban forests improve the quality of life for residents and that the health of urban forests were in decline. It was also in this year that Congress passed the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act to provide financial and technical assistance to improve urban forests across the United States.

Shared Values
CPTED and Urban Forestry can both claim to be the mayor's greatest asset in that they improve the health, safety, and well-being of the community. CPTED and urban forestry both need to be highly visible in order to positively influence the public's perception of their environment.  Visibility is a problem that urban forests and CPTED share. The public is often unaware of the benefits being provided by urban forests and crime prevention measures. Often these are the first programs to be cut when funding problems occur in a municipality. Only in the absence of these programs does the community realize the benefits that urban forests and crime prevention provide.  CPTED and urban forestry share the attractive potential of being very cost effective. The Center for Urban Forest Research has found that that for every dollar spent on the urban forests in Western Washington and Oregon, there is a return of as much as $3.12 per year (McPherson et al., 2002). Although the exact amount is unknown, there is also a significant savings in property loss/damage and the personnel involved in the arrest and incarceration every time a crime doesn't occur thanks to CPTED. 

CPTED and Urban Forestry are dependent upon citizen input. The police cannot prevent crime by themselves nor can a city arborist increase and sustain an urban forest with just his staff. The long term sustainability of both movements will be insured when members from the community claim ownership and responsibility. In addition to "everyday folks," CPTED and urban forestry rely upon the input and support from community leaders, educators, and representatives from the city (public works, parks & recreation, engineers, planners, fire, and police).

Because of the close relationship between CPTED and urban forests, each benefits from the success of the other resulting in a synergistic relationship.   

Urban Renewal
Initiatives aimed at improving urban forests and crime prevention can work synergistically in urban renewal. CPTED and urban forests seek to attract law abiding members of the community to utilize public spaces the way the spaces were intended to be utilized. Reducing crime and improving landscaping in commercial districts increases property values and attracts business - two key components of urban renewal. 

Growth of Urban Forests
Urban areas in the United States are increasing at a faster rate than the populations occupying the urban areas. In many urban areas the population doubles while the size of the urban area quadruples. As communities recognize the ecological, societal, and economical benefits of urban forests, a greater emphasis is being made to increase the number of trees in urban areas. Thanks to software interpreting satellite images and aerial photographs, it is now possible to quantify tree canopy coverage for a city in order to monitor the loss or gain of trees. Potential conflicts will certainly occur between crime prevention programs and tree planting organizations if representatives from each side fail to work together. However, the goals should be the same - matching the right tree to a particular site goes a long way to helping the tree reach its ultimate height and shape. When the tree is healthy and mature it can better fulfill its role in the urban forest and the crime prevention strategy for that particular area.

McPherson, E.G., S.E. Maco, J.R. Simpson, P.J. Peper, Q. Xiao, A. M. VanDerZanden, & N. Bell. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. March 2002.

Skogan, W.G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Urban Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York : Free Press

Whyte, W.H. 1968. The Last Landscape. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc