A CPTED audit tool to assess crime and safety in town centres

As an extension and structuring of common-sense approaches to crime reduction and prevention, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) audits are required to measure and design public safety. The lack of ready-made and validated CPTED audits and process guides obstructs the incorporation of CPTED elements to achieve safe and crime free public spaces. This article focusses on the development, implementation, reliability and validity of a CPTED audit to assess perceptions of crime and safety in a regional town centre in Queensland, Australia. A broader review of crime and safety within the town was also undertaken through a community survey, focus groups, media analysis and review of police crime data (Moir et al., 2023; Prenzler et al., 2022) and illustrates the benefits of this detailed CPTED audit to identify crime and safety issues and inform crime minimisation and public safety strategies. This paper aims to provide a valid and reliable CPTED audit tool template that could be adapted for the needs of specific public locations and purposes.

CPTED emerged in the 1970s as a form of situational crime prevention (Jeffery, 1971). Consistent with the crime triangle and routine activity perspectives, crime occurs as a function of congregations of people (“motivated offenders” and “suitable targets”) in activity nodes with inadequate guardianship to prevent crime (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Crowe, 1991; Newman, 1972). CPTED therefore has direct application to town centres.

First-generation CPTED focused on physical settings, whereas second- and third-generation CPTED addressed social and psychological aspects of spaces and the people in them (Cozens and Love, 2015; Mihinjac and Saville, 2019; Saville and Cleveland, 2008; Soomeren, 2021). Despite ongoing evolution and definitional debates surrounding CPTED there is broad consensus on the main elements of CPTED, namely, space activation, sightlines, lighting, natural and formal guardianship, territoriality or ownership, vulnerability (actual or sense of isolation) and place management, separating legitimate and non-legitimate activities and facilitating compliance (Cozens and Love, 2015; Crowe, 1991; Newman, 1972; Queensland Police Service, 2021; Soomeren, 2021; Sorenson et al., 2008). Numerous studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each principle in reducing crime and increasing perceptions of safety (see Cozens and Love, 2015 for an overview).

CPTED audits are implemented by people walking in public spaces to identify criminogenic aspects of the environment (Saville, 1991). CPTED audits are considered “the most important tool to check the vulnerability of a place in respect of crime and un-safety” (Mitra and Bardhan, 2017, p. 422); and have been adopted and promoted by state, federal and international governments since the 1970’s (Cozens and Love, 2015; Cozens et al., 2023; European Standardization Institute, 2022; New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2005a; Queensland Police Service, 2021; International Organisation for Standardization, 2022; Soomeren, 2021; United Kingdom Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004). Authorities have developed environmental audit tools often for application in specific settings such as schools (e.g. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017), construction sites and housing estates (e.g. New South Wales Police, 2019; Soomeren, 2021) or transport hubs (e.g. Monash University, 2017). These tools have sought to identify facilitators of crime in the environment – such as lack of guardians, or access and escape routes – which can be modified to reduce opportunities for crime.

Despite broad support for the application of CPTED principles to reduce local crime, few studies have evaluated the utility of a CPTED audit (Ceccato, 2019; Cozens et al., 2023). Moreover, many audit tools, including those endorsed as European or International standards, are not freely available (Soomeren, 2021). The absence of accessible and validated audits results in unnecessary time and effort spent on developing tools where one already exists (Atlas, 2008) and poor reporting of audit implementation processes results in unrepeatable site assessments.

Some best practice principles regarding CPTED tool development have been established as they emerged in the 1980s (Cozens et al., 2023). Rating scales of 1–5 across audit variables that reflect relevant CPTED concepts are considered best to enhance detail, precision, content and construct validity of the tool (Ceccato, 2019; Cozens et al., 2023), although high levels of specificity can impede reliability and increase rater subjectivity. The use of multiple audits for each site enables scores to be averaged, thereby reducing the risk of bias (Cozens et al., 2023). Deploying multiple auditors enables ratings consistency between auditors to be measured to identify and remove ambiguous variables and establish inter-rater reliability (Cozens et al., 2023; Brownson et al., 2009). Inter-rater reliability may also be enhanced when auditors possess “knowledge of theoretical concepts and CPTED indicators” and are well-trained prior to, during and after audit processes, particularly where auditors repeat the audit process (Ceccato, 2019, p. 19; Cozens et al., 2023; Hoehner et al., 2006). However, the costs and benefits of large numbers of auditors or audit items, such as co-ordination effort, stakeholder buy-in and wieldiness of the audit tool should be weighed for the purposes of each study.

The consistency of measures across different times of day or days of the week also establishes a tools’ reliability, notwithstanding its discernment of issues that may be more pronounced across day or night or on specific days (Ceccato, 2019; Cozens et al., 2023). Most CPTED audits fail to conduct night assessments, limiting their evaluation and reliability (Cozens et al., 2023). Internal consistency is another form of reliability, which refers to the congruence between items within the tool (Ceccato, 2019; Cozens et al., 2023).

Another element of good audit practice includes comparing audit results with other crime and demographic data to establish criterion validity that ensures site assessment tools accurately represent local issues (Ceccato, 2019; Cozens et al., 2023; Ekblom, 2011; Soomeren, 2021). Generalisability is also important in terms of a tools’ ability to assess other contexts or situations (Ceccato, 2019; Cozens et al., 2023).

Table 1 explores how CPTED tools have been developed by various jurisdictions. While not an exhaustive review of CPTED tools, it outlines some of the common elements and purposes of these types of observational audits, as well as gaps in their usability. The current study aims to consolidate useful elements of this previous work while enhancing accessibility and utility.

Twenty-five audits were conducted in Nambour, Queensland, Australia, across different days of the week and times of day. Nambour is a small historical regional town 101 kilometres north of Queensland’s capital city with a population of approximately 12,145 people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). The audit area measured approximately 140,400 m² within the town’s central business district (Google Maps, 2025). To facilitate detailed audits the area was divided into three sectors, each containing licensed entertainment venues:

1. the public transport hub also included a supermarket, eateries, green space and health services;

2. the town centre area included retail, public toilets, a recreational area and a large licensed entertainment venue; and

3. the banking district with eateries and retail outlets.

The authors identified that published CPTED audit tools available for comprehensively assessing town centres was limited. The authors’ previous CPTED audit work identified several crime and safety audit template examples that could be consolidated to comprehensively assess CPTED elements of the identified area, including Coe (2005), Mihinjac (2010), Aquilina (2011) and Saville (1991) (described in Table 1). Positive features of these sources included prompts to identify date, time and location of audit and identity of auditors, providing an overview of impressions of the audit area and potential solutions to identified issues, grouping items according to CPTED principles, providing space for comments to explain ratings for each item and brief direction to focus responses. Less useful features included providing yes or no responses rather than scaled responses, prompts for identifying improvements before completing the detailed audit and absence of unique identifiers for each item. Useful elements from each of these tools were collated, synthesised and duplication removed to create a single CPTED audit tool structured by CPTED principles. The audit is available as a supplementary file.

To inform a comprehensive crime prevention plan, the audit tool comprised 102 items across 11 categories, each reflecting the full range of microspatial, psycho-social and behavioural CPTED elements that may be encountered, as outlined in Table 2. Nine categories (88 items), excluding qualitative Status and Expansion items (14 items), were measured quantitatively using the following four-point Likert rating scale for most items: 0 = non-existent, 1 = poor, 2 = adequate/good, 3 = excellent, using terms auditors were previously trained to use and like those suggested by Saville (1991). Some items, such as “Offender behaviour would attract attention” required differing scales that were noted on the audit. For instance, 0 = no, 1 = possibly, 2 = likely/very likely, 3 = definitely. These items were reverse coded for analyses. To facilitate a deeper qualitative analysis of the audit area, the two categories for Status and Expansion (14 items) were measured via auditor comments. The Status category asked auditors to comment on the general purpose and their general impressions of the area. The Expansion questions were completed at the end of the audit and encouraged auditors to reflect on the potential for crime and safety in that area and recommendations for improvements.

A draft audit tool was critically reviewed for content and usability by the research team and approved by the Project Steering Committee. The project manager and student researcher conducted a pilot study to test the scope of the tool and data collection strategies (Cozens et al., 2023). Debriefing after the trial identified areas of concern that prompted some minor modifications to the audit tool, such as the inclusion of rating instructions for some items.

All auditors were trained and supervised by university project staff in a 4-h information session, including an hour trial audit of areas of the university campus. Training outlined audit concepts, tool and process and defined key terms such as rating scales. Rating scales were also defined on each page of the audit tool for ease of auditor reference. Training minimised input by supervisors during the audit, ensuring observers were comfortable with completing the audit independently. This process also encouraged differing perspectives to be identified, which is particularly important for experiences of safety and attractiveness of public spaces among diverse groups (e.g. men, women, young, mature, ethnically and culturally diverse groups; Ewing et al., 2013).

The audit team consisted of 15 students from the local university alongside a student researcher, project manager and a local council representative. Students had successfully completed, with a 65% grade or above, a second-year tertiary course that assessed knowledge and application of CPTED principles. The ages of auditors varied from early 20 s to mid-40s and 13 were female.

Audits were conducted by small groups or pairs of students who used public walkways to observe features of the environment and recorded this by hand on a hardcopy CPTED audit. To test inter-rater reliability, pairs of auditors independently rated an audit for the first day and night of audits.

Ethical approval (A211592) to conduct the audit required auditors to wear a high-visibility vest, student/staff identification and carry information sheets that stated their purpose for being in the area. Local police were advised of the audits. The project manager provided maps of the audit area and briefed and debriefed auditors prior to and at the conclusion of each audit. This enabled auditor attention to be directed to both positive and negative aspects of the environment and for any questions or concerns to be shared and managed. The project manager also provided support across the three audit teams during each audit for additional security and to address questions about use of the tool to support consistent implementation. Due to some safety concerns for the auditors, data collection was finished slightly earlier than planned, meaning data could not be collected for the final Friday and Saturday of the two-week period.

Twenty-five audits were completed across nine audit episodes over a two-week period in September 2021. Audits were conducted on weekdays and weekends during midday hours (11a.m.-2p.m.) and night (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) (see Table 3). Seventeen audits were conducted during the day and eight at night, with three audits conducted on the weekend (counted as Friday night and Saturday).

All 102 items and associated comments were assessed across the 11 categories to measure CPTED characteristics. Ratings were averaged across audits for each item, category and sector to identify CPTED categories that were performing well and prioritise those that could benefit from improvement (see Table 4). Analyses were also conducted for time of day and day of the week. Thematic and location analyses of audit comments were conducted to identify specific successes, issues and potential interventions. Recommendations based on auditor comments were prioritised according to how often and how many CPTED categories issues were identified for and their impact on overall auditor impressions (Expansion category).

Below we outline the results of our CPTED tool focusing on its utility, reliability and validity and how audit findings align with other data collected as part of the broader study. The final audit tool took less than 2 h to complete per Sector, with generally good levels of completeness. Of the 25 audits, 21 (80%) of auditors completed the audit.

The reliability of our CPTED tool was measured in two ways. Firstly, the internal consistency between items for the nine quantitative CPTED categories was measured using a Cronbach’s alpha test, as presented in Table 5. To ensure that all items within a scale were measuring the same concept, the number of quantitative audit items was reduced from 106 to 88 to increase internal consistency ratings (removed items are available in the supplementary file). Seven of the nine quantitative categories of the audit tool achieved a score of 0.70 or above, indicating a good to high level of internal consistency for the audit measures, with Sightlines achieving an acceptable score.

The Entrapment category did not reach an acceptable level of internal consistency. This category was originally designed to capture access control, movement and perceptions of crime and safety. The lack of internal consistency in this scale could be caused by a degree of subjectivity on some items such as “I feel safe” and the items being too diverse in topic and thereby failing to focus on a discrete form of safety or crime risk.

Secondly, inter-rater agreement was measured as a form of reliability, as shown in Table 6. Agreement within daytime audit pairs was then mostly good or better with 15 of 20 CPTED categories achieving more than 60% agreeance. Overall agreement on items during daytime audits was 61.9%–70.6% across pairs, suggesting moderate-to-good inter-rater agreement. However, the level of agreement was poor during night audits (43.4%). This may be an impact of poor night lighting, increased fearfulness at night, mixed gender of night auditors compared to single gender of day auditors and the result of training only taking place during the day, each of which may have enhanced subjectivity between auditors at night. Table 6 demonstrates some further differences in the reliability of some categories between daytime and night-time audits. For example, Sightlines had the highest level of inter-rater reliability, with no disagreement found during daytime audits (both had 100.0% agreement), but this reduced to 40.0% agreement at night. Further, although Movement had good agreement in the daytime audits, the agreement between the two raters at night was very low (16.7%).

Inter-rater agreement for Space Use, Entrapment and Movement measures were poor (averaging 48.8%, 52.2% and 52.4%, respectively), particularly for audits at night (33%, 40% and 16.7%, respectively). This could be due to these measures of safety and crime risk being the most subjective, with items such as “This area feels safe” (Entrapment), “There is a sense of inclusiveness” (Space Use) and “Routes from edge to centre of precinct are safe” (Movement). Other issues include a lack of internal consistency for the Entrapment category, and the high number of items (22) and breadth of topics for Space Use. Furthermore, debriefs with auditors suggested the differing wording on some scales (e.g. Entrapment and Space Use) were confusing, likely causing inconsistencies across raters.

Collectively, these results suggest that most of the measures had good levels of reliability, particularly for daytime audits and static, neutral measures of a place such as non-obstructed sightlines. However, the audit may not be as robust for observations at night or subjective measures.

Content validity was assessed by carefully checking the measurement method against the conceptual definition of the construct. The tool was developed using relevant literature and checked by each member of the research team. The tool was piloted to test clarity, interpretation, number and repetition of measures and feasibility. Content validity of the audit tool is supported by items identified in CPTED and crime reduction literature, the five CPTED audits the current tool was drawn from, and other tools discussed above in Table 1.

Content and construct validity of the tool was strengthened by theoretically supported correlations between audit categories (see Table 7). For example, using Spearman correlations, a significant positive relationship was found between Lighting and Entrapment (r_s = 0.73, p = 0.005), suggesting better lighting was associated with higher feelings of safety. Entrapment was also associated with place Ownership (r_s = 0.61, p = 0.009) and Space Use (r_s = 0.96, p < 0.001), indicating the presence of place management and guardianship were linked with higher feelings of safety. Positive correlations between Landscaping and Ownership (r_s = 0.60, p = 0.019), and Movement (r_s = 0.76, p = 0.002), and Signage (r_s = 0.58, p = 0.023) affirm a clean image for a place supports safety and lower crime threat and suggests busier places should be accessible while limiting illegitimate use.

Qualitative comments captured in the audits further support these findings. For example, a Saturday night auditor observed “followed for a little bit before being approached by a woman on a bike who mentioned ice and cleaning up the streets; couple of drunks wandering around aimlessly; someone climbing into a window at the ‘hotel’ rooms at the pub” and several day auditors commented on foliage needing maintenance, for instance “[…] Generally Townsquare outside community hall seating is somewhat secluded/obstructed by vegetation”. Collectively, these correlations support the validity of the audit tool.

Construct validity of the audit was further supported in several ways. Firstly, as presented in Table 8, scores for items across time of day differed in theoretically expected directions. For instance, independent samples t-test revealed significant differences in scores for Lighting during the day (M = 2.4, SD = 0.42) when compared to night audits (M = 1.4, SD = 0.43; t (14) = 4.19, p = <0.001). These results suggested an issue with night lighting, which was supported by several qualitative auditor comments such as “Terrible lighting!” and “It is hard to see someone’s face until they are close to you”. The strength of construct and content validity is also supported by night results overcoming the limits of a small sub-sample of eight compared to 17 for day audits.

Significant differences were also found for levels of Ownership of Space, with indicators of guardianship being more visible during the day (M = 2.0, SD = 0.35) than night (M = 1.6, SD = 0.29; t (17) = 2.18, p = <0.022). There were no significant differences across day and night-time audits for the remaining categories. However, this was generally expected as these categories largely measure static elements of a place which would be unlikely to change dramatically because of the time of day, such as “Pedestrian routes are clear and predictable” (Movement) and “Signage is well maintained” (Signage).

Interestingly, although specific items of the Entrapment scale were significantly different across day and night audits (e.g. “This area feels safe” night-time audits [M = 1.17, SD = 0.44] compared to daytime audits [M = 2.06, SD = 0.98; t (5.78) = 2.15, p = 0.038]) there were no significant differences across the average day and night scores for this category. For example, one observer commented during their night audit “Surprisingly not as unsafe as I thought it would be” while a day auditor commented “good use of area & public seating […] but illegitimate use of ‘town square’ area with people in groups drinking alcohol & smoking, roaming dogs, homeless people”. Space Use scores also did not differ significantly across time of day. This could be because this category featured static items which are unlikely to change depending on time of day (e.g. “Licensed premises are present”).This result could also reflect the consistent visibility of public disorder such as drug and alcohol use during the day and night in this town (Prenzler et al., 2022) or that feelings of safety (or not) were sustained across both the day and night.

No significant differences were found for measures across weekdays or weekend audits, however, this may reflect the small number of weekend audits that were conducted.

Criterion validity was supported by correlations between the audit results and focus group, community survey, official crime data, media analysis outcomes and crime reduction literature. Overall, the audit identified 140 specific issues within eight key recommendations to enhance perceptions of safety and reduce opportunity for crime in the town centre (Moir et al., 2023). Quantitative audit results demonstrated that while legitimate activities and informal guardianship were readily apparent, improved activity support, user mix, accessibility, image, management and maintenance, signage, sightlines and landscaping were required to expand guardianship and reduce disorderly conduct (Prenzler et al., 2022). Despite police crime data indicating that the town experienced lower reported crime rates than other similar local townships, concerns about visible disorder and antisocial behaviour in the town centre were reflected in quantitative audit data, community surveys and focus groups, official crime data and media analyses. The community survey (n = 398) identified loitering, drug dealing, vandalism and shop theft as specific issues as well as concern about antisocial behaviour and disorder in the town centre, which was further confirmed by focus group results and media analyses (Moir et al., 2023; Prenzler et al., 2022). Queensland Police Service crime data pattern review identified increased crime reports in the town centre during the day, and recent spikes in assault, trespassing and vagrancy, burglary and good order offences to pre-COVID levels, which may explain perceptions of pronounced crime and disorder issues.

Qualitative elements of the audit echoed quantitative results, as well as survey and focus group findings but also identified the appeal of the town as an entertainment precinct and the negative impact of empty shopfronts and a need for formal guardianship (Moir et al., 2023). Specific issues and potential solutions were identified via thematic and location analysis of 2,086 auditor comments across all CPTED categories. Issues included poor condition of buildings, footpaths and amenities, empty shopfronts, litter, poor lighting and signage, overgrown foliage and a lack of cultural heritage indicators (Moir et al., 2023). Auditor identified solutions included increased building and signage maintenance, resurfacing pathways, “pop up” programming, cigarette bins, cleaning rubbish from creeks, repairing existing lighting, trimming foliage and public murals (Moir et al., 2023). Triangulation of data sources across the broader project helped to strengthen the validity of the CPTED audit, as consistent results were found.

This paper provided an overview of the development, application and analysis of a CPTED audit tool to understand feelings of safety and the potential for crime in a regional town centre and identify ways these feelings and behaviours could be improved. The practical and reliable nature of the tool is important given the lack of current validated measures available to understand and enhance public safety.

The tool meets local and international best practice standards for using CPTED audit tools by combining a prudent rating scale with comments to explain item ratings and offer solutions (Cozens et al., 2023). Qualitative data provided a context for which quantitative data could be better understood, which was helpful for focussing the complexity of the overall analysis and prioritising recommendations. Expansion comments were particularly useful to encapsulate what works well, what the key issues were and what improvements could address identified concerns.

The audit identified areas where improvements could be made across all CPTED categories throughout the town centre, suggesting the tool is useful in specifying issues and solutions regarding crime, disorder and perceptions of safety. Comparison of audit results with other data collected as part of the broader project (survey, focus group, media and police crime data) highlighted reasons why there may be an imbalance between residents’ perceptions of crime and reality. The value of this CPTED audit in bringing together information drawn from complementary investigations to provide direction for improving the success and safety of town centres is supported by these outcomes.

CPTED audits are essentially subjective assessments and are thereby prone to bias (Cozens et al., 2023). However, auditor knowledge and training, the pairing of auditors, use of night audits, briefings before and after each audit, collegiate and project manager support during audits and averaged scores across audits, as achieved for this audit process, limited extreme ratings, seemed to enhance reliability of results and provided further understanding to inform recommendations relevant to the area (Ceccato, 2019; Cozens et al., 2023; Hoehner et al., 2006). The consistency of ratings between auditors during the day, as well as the intensity of training, saturation of audit supervision and support and availability of audit tool rating definitions suggests the training, support and audit tool content had an impact on minimising bias in their scoring.

However, conducting adequate night-time audits can be obstructed by safety and auditor availability. Moreover, the use of technologies, such as illuminance meters, could objectively measure some CPTED variables during audits to corroborate or challenge audit results. Poor inter-rater consistency for night audit categories of Movement, Lighting, Space Use, Sightlines and Entrapment may reflect night lighting issues identified and an appropriate degree of sensitivity for highly subjective items such as “I feel safe”. Differences between average day and night scores are consistent with theoretical expectations and support construct validity, which moderates concern regarding poor inter-rater reliability of night audits. Nonetheless, night training on these categories could minimise bias, verify the impact of auditor training and improve night-time inter-rater consistency.

While the comprehensive list of items enhances adaptability of the tool, too many items became unwieldly for implementation and analytical purposes, particularly for the 22 Space Use items. The reduction of items to achieve good to high levels of internal consistency is a welcome amendment for these purposes. Some items also seemed better positioned under other categories, reflecting the inter-related nature of CPTED categories. This manifested in some auditor comments being repeated across items. For example, the items “I feel Safe” in Space Use and “Formal/Informal guardianship is apparent” or “I feel I am a capable guardian in this space” for Ownership could instead sit under the Entrapment category. Furthermore, Entrapment failed to reach acceptable levels of internal consistency prompting a need to review this category due to repetition or better inclusion of items within, or from, other categories.

The ability to strike a balance between complexity and usability is important. Statistical reliability analyses suggested the original five-point Likert scale across 106 quantitative items should be reduced to a four-point scale across 88 quantitative items to enhance inter-rater reliability and internal consistency of audit categories. Initial testing of the audit tool using five-point Likert scales (as suggested in best-practice guides) were found to be unreliable, with some confusion and disagreement between auditors in discerning “Adequate” or “Good”. Hence, these categories were combined, resulting in a four-point Likert scale. Further, the original 106 quantitative items may be cumbersome, depending on the resources available to teams carrying out CPTED audits. Decisions regarding item composition for particular environments requires further protocol development and testing and should be carefully considered by future users. The use of differing rating scales should also be closely reviewed to minimise rating confusion and enhance inter-rater reliability. While audit tools should be flexible enough to be adapted for different locations and contexts, fast and simple analysis and interpretation of results is seen as most useful for end users (Cozens et al., 2023). Users are nonetheless cautioned that failure to consider disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups such as youth, homeless, mentally ill, substance users or the elderly may lead to detriments on quality of life for the wider community (Millie, 2007; Herring et al., 2020).

We are contributing to the limited number of publicly available audit tools by offering a tool that incorporates first-, second- and third-generation CPTED categories. The tool is considered comprehensive enough to be useful for a variety of locations such as streets, parks, residential or institutional complexes, shopping centres, town centres, business districts or neighbourhoods. Further research is required to test its generalisability across cultures.

The inter-related nature and poor definition of CPTED domains, clearly demonstrated in Table 2 above, creates conflict in assessment and analysis (Armitage, 2007; Ekblom, 2011). Clear definitions are important to generate consensus between various stakeholders such academics, policy makers, community members and police (Armitage, 2018; Armitage and Monchuk, 2019). In addition, intoxicated offenders are known to be less likely to be influenced by CPTED strategies, which could be an important consideration for areas impacted by public drug or alcohol use (Cozens et al., 2023).

This paper offers a CPTED audit tool that comprehensively identifies issues and potential solutions for crime, safety and general usability of town centres. The tool satisfies general reliability and validity measures. Audit results identified features and locations that could be usefully prioritised to enhance safety and minimise crime. The comprehensive nature of the audit tool, and associated implementation and analysis processes, enable its adaption for use across a wide variety of purposes and agencies interested in understanding and addressing crime and safety in public or private places. While comparison with other data sources to confirm and inform CPTED audit results is necessary, the CPTED audit tool and analysis seem to be the central element that produced definitive, specific and useful guidance on improving crime and safety features of the environment. Given the proven utility of the CPTED audit tool and process, we offer this as a best practice guide for generating clear direction for complex multi-faceted crime and safety analyses of public places.

This research was funded by the Sunshine Coast Council. The role of the Council was to oversee and provide direction on the audit project, provide relevant information, identify relevant stakeholders for focus groups, host the community survey on their website and review and endorse milestone reports. University staff were responsible for designing, developing, co-ordinating and conducting the research and delivering agreed reports. The authors also acknowledge Caprice Large’s support as her Honours thesis focussed on development, implementation and results of this project.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.