H. Borrion, Octavian Ciprian Bordeanu, S. Toubaline
{"title":"Simulation of dependencies between armed response vehicles and CPTED measures in counter-terrorism resource allocation","authors":"H. Borrion, Octavian Ciprian Bordeanu, S. Toubaline","doi":"10.4324/9781315687773-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"National and local governments must continuously adapt counter-terrorism strategies to new \nand evolving threats. With limited budgets, security architects and planners across the world \nface the same recurrent challenge: specifying a portfolio of effective measures and detailing \nwhere and when to deploy those. To perform this difficult task, methods have been proposed \nthat apply a risk-based approach to solve this class of optimisation problems. However, many \nof those methods either ignore important aspects of the attacker-defender interaction or are \ntoo complicated to appeal to practitioners. \nAimed at security specialists, this article uses simulation experiments to examine current \nresponses to an unsophisticated but increasingly frequent manifestation of terrorism: vehicle \nand knife attacks. In particular, it shows that the optimal configuration of Armed Response \nVehicles (ARVs) and measures of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design \n(CPTED) depends on whether offenders conduct hostile reconnaissance, the way they react to \n2 \nthe presence of security measures, and what attributes of the opportunity structure influence \ntheir actions most. \nThrough this study, we demonstrate how information about offender displacement can be \nused to improve security strategies. We found that security architects and planners should not \nnecessarily prioritise the most crowded and high-profile targets but could also consider \ndeploying CPTED measures to protect nearby secondary targets. As we review the \ninformation underpinning our decision-making model, practical challenges in modelling \ndisplacement are then highlighted. Finally, a more general observation is made that, despite \nstrong conceptual differences, ARVs and CPTED measures are, in fact, interdependent","PeriodicalId":118883,"journal":{"name":"Rebuilding Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rebuilding Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315687773-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
National and local governments must continuously adapt counter-terrorism strategies to new
and evolving threats. With limited budgets, security architects and planners across the world
face the same recurrent challenge: specifying a portfolio of effective measures and detailing
where and when to deploy those. To perform this difficult task, methods have been proposed
that apply a risk-based approach to solve this class of optimisation problems. However, many
of those methods either ignore important aspects of the attacker-defender interaction or are
too complicated to appeal to practitioners.
Aimed at security specialists, this article uses simulation experiments to examine current
responses to an unsophisticated but increasingly frequent manifestation of terrorism: vehicle
and knife attacks. In particular, it shows that the optimal configuration of Armed Response
Vehicles (ARVs) and measures of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED) depends on whether offenders conduct hostile reconnaissance, the way they react to
2
the presence of security measures, and what attributes of the opportunity structure influence
their actions most.
Through this study, we demonstrate how information about offender displacement can be
used to improve security strategies. We found that security architects and planners should not
necessarily prioritise the most crowded and high-profile targets but could also consider
deploying CPTED measures to protect nearby secondary targets. As we review the
information underpinning our decision-making model, practical challenges in modelling
displacement are then highlighted. Finally, a more general observation is made that, despite
strong conceptual differences, ARVs and CPTED measures are, in fact, interdependent