the effects of video surveillance - what does the research say?

Markus Lahtinen & Benjamin Weaver

Lusax, Lunds Universitetwww.lusax.ehl.lu.se

[email protected]

[email protected]

22 September 2015 Security User Expo -Tryghedskameraets dag 1

The effects of video surveillance – what does the research say?

SecurityUser Expo – Tryghedskameraets dag22 September 2015 2

SecurityUser Expo – Tryghedskameraets dag

Why is research important?

322 September 2015

”CCTV should be a last measure”

”Research doesnot support the

notion that CCTV reduces crime”

Kristina Svahn StarrsjöHead of Data Inspection Authority


The principle of proportionality

422 September 2015

Individual’sright to privacy• Social exclusion• Surveillance

creep• Fortress society

Potential value of camera surveillance:• Prevention• Detection• Investigation


Country Citycenters

Councilhousing

Publictransport

Parkinglots

Other Total

UK 17 7 3 6 3 37US, CA 3 2 1 6SE, NO 2 2Total 22 9 4 6 3 44

Welsh & Farrington 2007• Systematic review of the effects of public

space CCTV commissioned by Swedish Crime Prevention Council (BRÅ)

• 44 scientific studies fit criteria20 from1978-1999, 24 from 2000-2005


Overall: 16% crime reduction

622 September 2015

Source: Welsh & Farrington, 2009


What does the research say?Research question:The preventive effect of video surveillance on crime rate

• None or marginal effect in citycentre / public space– spontaneous crime

• Significant effect on car parks –planned crime

22 September 2015 7


Gaps in the research• UK– a unique case

• Criminological (quasi-experimental) method– Narrow focus on crime rates– Narrow focus on a few specific contexts

• Technology shift: analog – digital– Improved image quality– Increased ease of retrieval and distribution

822 September 2015


UK – a unique context• 4-5 million surveillance cameras (?)

• 20% of world’s CCTV cameras

• One camera per 14 inhabitants: A person is captured 300 times/day

• Government and local authorities have spent £1,2 billion on CCTV from 1994 – 2011

• Strong public support in favour of video surveillance


Example: Shetland Islands

1022 September 2015

• One of the smallestcouncils in UK

• 23000 residents

• 100 public space CCTV camera

• More public space CCTV-cameras than San Francisco and Sydney (2009)

Source: BBC (2009)


UK is an extreme outlier• State sponsored,

unregulated CCTVon a massive scale

• Large and costlycity centre CCTVsystems

• Crime prevention has been an explicitly stated political goal – hence important to measure the effect of CCTV

22 September 2015 11


”Big Brother” surveillanceis a special case, even in UK

• 50,000 out of 4-6 million cameras in UK (1%)

• Germany, Norway, Denmark, Austria, Hungary: 1000 public CCTV cameras (Urbaneye, 2004)

• The vast majority of cameras that cover public space have been funded and installed by private companies or organisations

1222 September 2015


Public space CCTV a rarity in Sweden

1322 September 2015

City Place No. cams Year In use

Malmö Möllevångstorget 3 2001 No(?)

Helsingborg Stadsparken 5 2001 No

Landskrona Centrum 16 2007 No

Malmö Stortorget-Södergatan 5 2012 No

Malmö Seved / Rasmusgatan 4 2012 Yes

StockholmMedborgarplatsenStureplan

97

2012 Yes

Malmö Rosengård 2 2015 Yes


Narrow focus on crime prevention

1422 September 2015

Crime rates are easy to measure but does not provide the whole picture:

• Many confounding factors: street lighting, crime trends, police force organisation…

• No qualitative information: Change in types of crime, degree of seriousness…

• Limited attention to other outcomes, e.g. injury– Several studies show that monitored CCTV significantly limits

the effects of assault injuries, due to early detection and intervention.


Little or no research on other potential benefits of CCTV• Crime investigation and conviction

– Important for a high level of public confidence in the criminal justice system

– Significant cost/time savings

• Detection and early intervention• Perceived safety by public• Documentation & educationAll hard to measure quantitatively…



Milton Keynes study 2006

1622 September 2015

• Explorative case study

• City centre CCTV-system with 36 cameras inMilton Keynes, UK

• Approximately £2 million in annual savings for police and criminal justice system– Early detection of crime

– Early admittance of guilt and other investigative resource saving effects throughout the entire criminal justice system

Source: Owen, Keats & Gill (2006)


Other public space contextsFocus on city centres and parking lots leaves large gaps in the research:

• Schools: Anecdotal evidence points to positive results on firesetting, vandalism

• Shops, companies: Use camera surveillance for many purposes and see many benefits

• Public transport

• Arenas etc…



”Third forensic science”

1822 September 2015

• Shift to digital systems and systematic use ofvideo for identification

• Approx. 4000 of 5000 London riots 2011 arrests directly related to CCTV-generated evidence

Source: Mick Neville, Central Forensic Image Team, Metropolitan Police, London


Conclusions

• Research on CCTV effects important for legislation and regulation

• Existing research shows a marginal positive preventive effect

• The research has so far been too narrow in its focus, leaving large knowledge gaps



We need new research that…

2022 September 2015

• Investigates the concretedisadvantages

• of video surveillance

• Investigates benefits beyoundcrime prevention

• Is based on evidence from other contexts and countries

• Uses alternative methods