Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

CPTED and HomelesCPTED and Homelessness

Authors: Love, Terence;

CPTED and HomelesCPTED and Homelessness

Abstract

This article examines the application of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to the management of homeless people in public space, arguing that enforcement actions directed at homeless persons, including confiscation of belongings, destruction of shelter equipment, and forced movement, are both analytically incorrect as CPTED and legally exposed under Australian law. The article's primary argument is a proportionality principle: directing scarce public resources to remove homeless people from public space in order to improve the amenity of already-comfortable residents transfers costs from those with more to those with less. This is a transfer that ISO 22341:2021, the international CPTED standard, directly prohibits. The standard requires CPTED to be applied universally and without prejudice of any kind, and identifies provision of shelters for homeless people as a CPTED strategy. It does not identify removal of homeless people from public space as a CPTED strategy. The article draws on Bobeldyk v Moreton Bay City Council [2026] QSC 27, in which the Queensland Supreme Court found that blanket enforcement approaches against homeless campers on public land, including issuing short-term compliance notices without alternative accommodation available and destroying belongings without consent, were unlawful. The judgment is discussed alongside the common law tort of conversion, which applies across all Australian jurisdictions and provides a basis for financial liability claims where property is wrongfully taken and destroyed. An operational decision framework is provided for practitioners: do the minimum useful thing available; if nothing useful is available, do nothing. This principle is analysed in relation to legal liability, professional standards, and the negotiation of pressure from resident groups seeking enforcement action. The article also addresses consistency of enforcement across socioeconomic groups using the same public spaces. The article was first published on LinkedIn Pulse on 3 June 2026 and is uploaded here for academic accessibility and citation purposes.

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback