After dark or in other poorly lighted conditions, surveillance opportunities are affected by light levels and supplemental artificial lighting (for a review of the literature see Cozens et al., 2003).
A recent review of lighting and crime research re-examined a number of studies conducted in the UK and the USA (Farrington and Welsh, 2002). This systematic review (which excluded several poorly designed lighting evaluations) found that improved street lighting reduced recorded crime overall by 7 per cent in the eight American studies and by 30 per cent in the five UK studies.
Reductions in recorded crime were also demonstrated during the day, suggesting that street lighting is likely to have an effect by increasing community pride and informal social control rather than by simply improving surveillance opportunities (Farrington and Welsh, 2002).
Across all the studies the crime reduction effect was 20 per cent. Studies have also revealed that the financial benefits (based upon government estimates of the financial costs of various crimes) of improved street lighting schemes far outweighed their initial costs (Painter and Farrington, 2001b).
In the context of recent research, Pease (1998, p. 2) argues the case is proven and states: Our aim should now be to use context-appropriate lighting schemes as part of a full repertoire of crime reduction tactics
