Skip Navigation


British Journal of Criminology Advance Access originally published online on April 8, 2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
44/3/441    most recent
azh009v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Marchant, P. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The British Journal of Criminology 44:441-447 (2004)
British Journal of Criminology 44(3) © the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD) 2004; all rights reserved

RESEARCH NOTE

A Demonstration That the Claim That Brighter Lighting Reduces Crime Is Unfounded

P. R. Marchant*

* Centre for Research and Graduate Studies, Leeds Metropolitan University, Calverley Street, Leeds, UK.

The major systematic review on street lighting and crime, Home Office Research Study 251, suggests that claims for the effectiveness of lighting against crime are justified. The review at first sight appears to be an appropriate statistical synthesis of all studies on street lighting and crime across the world. However on close examination, the statistical claims and methods are unfounded. In three cases examined there is a clear conflict between the evidence and the reviewers' interpretation of this. One of the principal problems is easily seen. The time-series of the original data from the Bristol study shows no good evidence for the crime reduction benefit of lighting. However the review gives the result for the same data as being extremely statistically significant. It is suggested that such a difference between the newly lit and the control areas occurring purely by chance is less than one in a billion, but this is manifestly wrong. Two other component studies, Birmingham and Dudley, are examined.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.