The impact and policy relevance of street lighting for crime prevention: A systematic review based on a half‐century of evaluation research

• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Author: Brandon C. Welsh,David P. Farrington,Stephen Douglas
• Date: 01 August 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12585

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The impact and policy relevance of street

lighting for crime prevention: A systematic

review based on a half-century of evaluation

research

Brandon C. Welsh1David P. Farrington2Stephen Douglas1

School of Criminology and Criminal

Justice, Northeastern University, Boston,

Massachusetts, USA

University of Cambridge, Institute of

Criminology, Cambridge, UK

Correspondence

Brandon C. Welsh,School of Criminology

and Criminal Justice, Northeastern

University, ChurchillHall, 

Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA .

Email: b.welsh@northeastern.edu

Abstract

Research Summary: This article reports on an updated

systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of

street lighting interventions on crime in public places.

Following Campbell Collaboration guidelines, it uses

robust criteria for inclusion of studies, comprehensive

search strategies to identify eligible studies, a detailed

protocol for coding key study characteristics, and rigor-

ous methods for analyzing studies. A total of  stud-

ies met the inclusion criteria, originating in four coun-

tries (United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, and South

Korea) and covering almost  years (–). The

review finds that street lighting interventions are asso-

ciated with a significant desirable effect on total crime

(% reduction in treatment areas compared with com-

parable control areas); desirable effects are greater in

studies that measured both night and day crimes than

in studies that only measured night crimes; and street

lighting is followed by a significant reduction in prop-

erty crimes, but not in violent crimes.

Policy Implications: Compared to past years, it

would seem that an even stronger case can be made

today for street lighting interventions to be part of

crime-prevention policy. A larger body of high-quality

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. ©  American Society of Criminology. 739wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

740 WELSH  .

evaluation research, implemented in a range of high-

crime public places, some evidence of value for money,

and a continued desirable impact on crime, especially

property crime, all point to the policy relevance of street

lighting interventions.

KEYWORDS

crime prevention, public policy, street lighting, systematic review

1 INTRODUCTION

Street lighting may be considered part of the physical landscape—the infrastructure even—of

urban and suburban life in most industrialized countries. It serves several key purposes, includ-

ing traffic and pedestrian safety and the prevention of crime (see Beyer & Ker, ; Welsh &

Farrington, ). Its connection to crime prevention is documented by a longstanding interest

in its effects on crime, support from a number of theoretical perspectives, and the historical record.

Beginning in the United States in the s, there has been a half-century of research on the

impact of street lighting on crime, as well as some modest policy interest on the part of fed-

eral/central and local governments. There is also something of an enduring effect of street lighting

on crime in public places, as shown in studies from the s to the present day. As we find in the

current article, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the best available research evi-

dence, street lighting is associated with a significant decrease in crime.

Explanations of the way street lighting can preventcrime are grounded in situational crime pre-

vention, with a focus on reducing opportunity and increasing risk (Clarke, ), natural, infor-

mal surveillance (Clarke, ),and investment in neighborhood conditions (Taub et al., ;Tay-

lor & Gottfredson, ). (We return to theoretical perspectivesin the next section.) With respect

to history, according to Zahm (, p. ), public street lighting for the purpose of crime pre-

vention dates from  in France during the reign of Louis XIV. Ellis (, as cited in Chalfin,

Kaplan et al., ) notes that the historical record of street-lights used for public safety may go as

far back as the Greco-Roman era in  B.C.

In more recent years, several other factors havealso played a role in the use of street lighting for

crime prevention in public places. One of these factors has to do with financial austerity on the

part of local government. Some governments faced with budget shortfalls have resorted to a num-

ber of measures to curtail financial costs associated with operating and maintaining public street

lights, including switching off lighting, part-night lighting, dimming, and white light (Davies &

Farrington, ; Perkinset al., ). Sometimes these measures are implemented in the name of

energy conservation (Mihale-Wilson et al., ). In reported cases in U.S.cities and towns, these

measures have often had the effect of galvanizing public support for maintaining existing street

lighting, with personal safety and fear of crime being the most important motivations (Aued, ;

Walt er, ; see also Perkinset al., ).

Another factor is the concern that street lighting may contribute to light pollution (Pease,).

This has environmental implications, as well as impacts on nighttime viewing of the skies. These

factors are important in policy debates about street lighting and crime prevention,and we consider

them alongside the research evidence on lighting’s impact on crime.