A most common goal of installing CCTV systems has been the prevention, detection of crime and disorder through deterrence. It can be assumed that CCTV will aid detection through its surveillance capability and the opportunity to deploy security personnel or police officers appropriately when crimes were detected. CCTV can also provide public reassurance and perception; therefore reduces fear of crime. Bennett & Gelsthorpe, 1996 and Tilley, 1997) suggested that CCTV may reduce crime as criminal are deterred from visiting CCTV covered areas, believing them to be too dangerous. CCTV cameras have also proven to be an effective form of situational crime prevention, but under much more limited conditions. In a systematic review of 44 high-quality evaluations from the U.S., U.K., and several other western countries, it was found that CCTV is most effective in reducing crime in car parks. It is most effective in reducing vehicle crimes, and is more effective in reducing crime in the U.K. than in other countries (Welsh & Farrington, 2009a; see also Welsh & Farrington, 2009b). Other reviews by Ratcliffe (2006) and Wilson and Sutton (2003) also concluded that CCTV is effective under similar conditions.
The exact optimal circumstances for effective use of CCTV schemes are not entirely clear at present, and this needs to be established by future evaluation research. It is interesting to note that the success of the CCTV schemes in car parks was mostly limited to a reduction in vehicle crimes and camera coverage was high for those evaluations that reported on it. In the national British evaluation of the effectiveness of CCTV, Farrington et al. (2007) found that effectiveness was significantly correlated with the degree of coverage of the CCTV cameras, which was greatest in car parks. Furthermore, all 6 car park schemes included other interventions, such as improved lighting and security officers. It is plausible to suggest that CCTV schemes with high coverage and other interventions, targeted on vehicle crimes, are effective.
Three of the 6 car park schemes were evaluated by Tilley (1993) in the British cities of Hartlepool, Bradford, and Coventry. Each scheme was part of the British Government’s Safer Cities Programme, a large-scale crime prevention initiative that operated from the late 1980s to mid-1990s. In Hartlepool, CCTV cameras were installed in a number of covered car parks and the control area included a number of non-CCTV covered car parks. Security personnel, notices of CCTV, and payment schemes were also part of the package of measures employed to reduce vehicle crimes. Twenty-four months after the program began; thefts of and from vehicles had been substantially reduced in the experimental compared with the control car parks. A 59% reduction in thefts of vehicles was observed in the experimental car parks compared with a 16% reduction in the control car parks. Tilley (1993) concluded that the CCTV covered at car parks in relation to theft of cars clearly declines over time.
The systematic review by Welsh and Farrington (2009b) also found that CCTV is associated with a non-significant and rather small reduction in crimes in city and town centers. This may raise particular interest among policymakers because this is the most popular public setting for the implementation of CCTV systems in the U.S. and elsewhere (Savage, 2007). There was no clear indication about what may work best in this environment but evident proved the effectiveness of CCTV in car parks. For example, CCTV in city and town centres may be more effective if they are targeted on property crimes, targeted at specific places such as high-crime areas and combined with other security surveillance measures. Regular crime analysis by the Police could be used to identify those places that are at greatest risk for property crimes, which, in turn, could be used to guide the implementation of video surveillance. The advent of mobile CCTV cameras may be more practical, feasible and a less costly option (Waples & Gill, 2006). This approach could also target toward reducing the pervasiveness of the threat to the general public’s privacy and other civil liberties (Hier, 2010).
Skinns (1998) conducted eight of the 44 studies in the systematic review related to cost-benefit analysis and found that the criminal justice costs saved from fewer prosecutions and sentences (the benefits) were greater than the costs of running the CCTV program by more than 3 times. The other 7 programs are part of the British national evaluation of CCTV conducted by Gill and Spriggs (2005). Cost-benefit analyses of these 7 programs found mixed results: 3 were worthwhile (the benefits from crimes prevented outweighed the costs of running the program), 3 were inefficient (the costs outweighed the benefits), and the multi-site Hawkeye scheme was worthwhile in the highest risk car parks. Gill and Spriggs (2005) found the cost-benefit results to be largely owing to the schemes having little overall impact on the incidence of crime, but also because the systems’ complexity (Gill & Spriggs, 2005).
Security survey has been conducted along the PLUS highway and result is tabulated in Figure 4.59 and Figure 4.60. Most of areas surveyed found that very few rest areas are installed with cctv cameras at the parking area and rest area facility. For those rest areas installed with cctv camera, researcher noticed very few cctv camera has being installed and obviously it is not sufficient to monitor the situation. Security guarding services and security patrolling were not found at all the RSAs and Lay-by areas of PLUS highway. Card access systems were also not available. Vehicle parking areas are not secured or controlled. Anyone is able to access to the vehicle or truck parking facilities for those area provided with dedicated truck parking. There are a few rest areas where Police post was available but upon checking them found Police personnel is not available manning the posts. PLUS Highway provides facilities for traveller a stop point during their long distance trip known as Rest and Service Areas or better known as the RSAs or R&R along the highway. Located every 30 to 50 kilometres, these facilities are provided for highway user to ensure they feel as comfortable as possible and enjoy their journey. Lay-bys are areas for travellers to seek respite before continuing their journey. There are parking bays, toilets, wakaf (shelter) and public telephones. Even though Lay-bys are not fully equipped like the RSAs, the facilities provided are sufficient for a short break.