Physical Spaces for Campus Sexual Violence Prevention: A Conceptual Model

Abstract

As a part of socio-ecological approaches to campus sexual violence prevention, there is a call for greater attention to the role of the environment. Despite this, physical space, an aspect of the built environment, is understudied. There is a lack of models for the ways physical space can help facilitate prevention efforts on campus. Disciplines such as criminology have put forth theories such as crime prevention through environmental design, which offer a foundation for application to college campuses but which require modification. The current model draws from reviews of research, theory, and critiques of work on the prevention and the physical environment to present a strengths-centered, social justice–based model for campuses to incorporate the consideration of physical spaces into sexual violence prevention planning.

Keywords

violence prevention sexual violence college students

A large number of college students experience sexual violence, defined as a continuum of unwanted sexual contact including acts using force, threat of force, coercion, or incapacitation, despite student activism, federal legislation, and increased media attention aimed at preventing it. A recent survey by the Association of American Universities indicated that among undergraduates across 33 institutions, 25.9% of women, 6.8% of men, and 22.5% of transgender, queer, and non-binary students reported experiencing sexual violence since arriving on campus (Cantor et al., 2020). Many institutions of higher education (IHEs) have implemented various policies and programs to prevent campus sexual violence. However, existing programs are mainly focused on changing individual student attitudes and behaviors rather than the attitudes and behaviors of the larger campus culture, despite calls by scholars to enact more comprehensive, holistic, and ecological changes to IHEs that include attention to the campus environment (Banyard, 2014; Casey & Lindhorst, 2009; McMahon et al., 2019; Moylan & Javorka, 2020). Critiques of theories of built environment, or the buildings, shared spaces, and architectural design of a campus (Edwards, 2017; Lee, 2020), however, raise issues with its implementation. The current article will draw from research, theory, and critiques to present a revised, IHE- and strengths-centered model of how campuses can incorporate a consideration of physical spaces into sexual violence prevention planning.

The Campus Environment and Sexual Violence Prevention

As part of a recent focus on ecological perspectives, campus administrators are encouraged to examine their campus environments as well as to implement programs geared toward changing individual-level attitudes and behaviors (Dills et al., 2016; Moylan & Javorka, 2020). However, definitions of “the environment” remain vague and ill-defined, and the role of environmental factors in campus sexual violence has not been well articulated nor examined. Some campuses have implemented environmental-level strategies that include increased lighting, call boxes for assistance, and the presence of security guards in various campus locations. Unfortunately, the evidence to support the effectiveness of these measures is lacking (Kyle et al., 2017). In addition, these approaches almost exclusively focus on the occurrence of sexual assault committed by strangers, yet most campus incidences are perpetrated by someone known to the victim; thus, these measures can contribute to a false sense of security and a belief that victims are responsible for prevention (Linder & Lacy, 2020). Expanded conceptualizations of “campus environment” strategies are needed to engage the larger campus community, such as faculty, staff, and students, in innovative approaches to comprehensive prevention, including changing perpetrator and potential engaged bystander behaviors through environmental design.

Researchers from criminology and other disciplines argue that attention to the built environment—buildings, shared spaces, and architectural design—can reduce the risk of crime by limiting opportunities for deviant behavior and increasing communities’ sense of responsibility, social control, and connection (Cozens & Love, 2015). These factors might also lead to increased prosocial behavior, including bystander action, to help interrupt risky situations (Banyard, 2015), promote attitudes such as sense of community, and reinforce norms that support compassion and helping, which protect against aggressive behaviors (Rothman et al., 2018). In this article, we use the terms physical spaces and built environment to signal our focus on geographic spaces rather than policy or information environments.

The role of the built environment and its impact on social processes has only started to be examined in relation to campus sexual violence. Recent work by Hirsch and Khan (2020) highlights the importance of the built environment in understanding the sexual experiences of college students, arguing that “sexual outcomes are intimately tied to the physical spaces where they unfold…space has a social power that elicits and produces behavior” (p. xix). In this sense, the built environment can directly impact the occurrence or prevention of sexual violence. However, factors that may mediate the relationship between the built environment and sexual violence have not been well described or researched. Two main prevention goals related to campus sexual violence are reducing the risk of potential perpetration and increasing the prosocial action of bystanders, with both ultimately leading to a reduction in victimization. Thus, identifying whether the built environment on campuses can facilitate these prevention goals warrants further attention.

The current article reviews available literature on using environmental design to reduce crime, critiques the limitations of the literature, and presents a new, integrated conceptual model of how the built environment on campuses can be part of a larger prevention framework to reduce campus sexual violence. The model was created by first conducting a targeted literature review of theories related to crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), its application to educational settings, and specifically, its intersection with sexual violence prevention. The multidisciplinary research team then used the literature to help develop a conceptual model that was subjected to multiple iterations of review. The team was intentionally created to incorporate expertise from multiple disciplines (e.g., sexual violence, prevention science, community psychology, and public health). Given that built environment strategies for reducing crime have been criticized for being misused in ways that are deficit-based, blame communities, and reinforce systemic racism and other forms of oppression (Cozens & Love, 2017; Lee, 2020), a strengths-based, social justice lens was used throughout the development of the model.

Theoretical Frameworks

The socio-ecological model (SEM) used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is frequently applied to violence prevention (Dills et al., 2016). The model urges prevention strategies that work to change individual- and group-level attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as community- and organization-level factors and broad societal factors (Dills et al., 2016). However, its application to campus sexual violence is not well conceptualized, particularly for variables at the outer layers of the model (e.g., communities, societal values, and policies), which are rarely a focus of prevention work at IHEs (Moylan & Javorka, 2020). Chan et al. (2016) argue that for effective violence prevention, these outer-level factors should be re-conceptualized as central to the model to emphasize the interconnectedness of individuals and their environment.

Crime prevention through environmental design theories can work in tandem with SEM to provide a more specific way forward. Crime prevention through environmental design maintains that the built environment can be a proximal influence, through opportunity for criminal activity to occur, as well as a more distal influence, through opportunity to engage in social processes that can protect against crime (Cozens & Love, 2015; Newman, 1972). The “second generation” of CPTED emphasized how the built environment not only reduces opportunities for crime but also can promote positive social interactions and increase the sense of community and connectedness (Cozens & Love, 2015; Saville & Cleveland, 1997). Related theories such as busy streets (Aiyer et al., 2015) and community-engaged greening (Okvat & Zutra, 2011) explain how well-maintained spaces can engage community members, build a sense of connection, and strengthen a sense of responsibility and accountability, which in turn promote behaviors that serve as protective factors against crime (Heinze et al., 2018). Most recently, a “third generation” of CPTED was introduced by Mihinjac and Saville (2019) and focuses more on protective factors and the concept of livability or quality of life. Livability includes basic needs like food and shelter, but extends to the ability to form connections to other people and places, participate in the creation of social programs and spaces, engage in prosocial activities, and be involved in local decision-making and governance.

Crime prevention through environmental design’s focus on social processes and community connection can align with Chan et al.’s (2016) notion of a more interconnected ecological approach to violence prevention. However, critics argue that CPTED theories have been used in ways that have been harmful to communities, particularly based on race and class (Cozens & Love, 2017; Lee, 2020), for example, by victim-blaming for criminal activity, as well as place blaming (blaming neighborhoods and the people that live in them for crime). These victim- and place-blaming perspectives have led to the enactment of racist policies that have perpetuated harm in communities with large proportions of people of color (Green et al., 2006; Kendi, 2019). For example, broken windows approaches have been criticized for leading to aggressive policing methods, which were unfairly directed at communities that were marginalized by racism, ultimately leading to less trust in the criminal justice system, mass incarceration of Black individuals, and systemic racism (Kamalu & Onyeozili, 2018). The design justice movement calls for an analysis of the built environment that acknowledges the inherent racism in most existing architectural design and encourages the design of spaces that challenge structural inequalities, while also emphasizing community strengths (Costanza-Chock, 2020; Lee, 2020; Purifoye, 2017).

Design justice models encourage community engagement and power sharing in the analysis of built environment changes (Lee, 2020). Thus, models that consider the role of the built environment in preventing sexual violence must also recognize how it is connected with other forms of oppression and harm, acknowledge the historic context, and find alternative ways to engage in prevention that allow for multiple narratives and build upon community strengths (Linder & Harris, 2017). This is consistent with a more intersectional approach to public health and prevention science, which acknowledges that an individual’s various identities (e.g., racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic, and disability status) and experiences of oppression related to those identities influence their lived experiences (Collins, 1998; Crenshaw, 1991).

CPTED Applied to Educational Settings

Researchers have found aspects of CPTED helpful for understanding school environments (Astor et al., 2004), which can potentially be applied to campus settings (Vagi et al., 2018; Wilcox et al., 2006). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2020) recognizes the built environment as an important factor in the prevention of violence in schools. Researchers who have tested the application of CPTED principles within schools have reported mixed findings. For example, in a study across 65 systematically sampled Kentucky schools, Wilcox et al. (2006) found that territoriality, surveillance, and a sense of order were associated with lower reports of incidents of school violence by teachers, although not by students. Taylor et al. (2014) assessed “hot spots” in 30 New York City schools to identify where peer violence most often occurred. Increasing staff presence in those locations was part of a successful set of actions that decreased a number of forms of interpersonal violence, both for boys and girls. Crime prevention through environmental design approaches in schools needs to be implemented in thoughtful ways, with a critical understanding of potential negative effects. For example, many schools have tried using metal detectors to reduce violence. Overall, this strategy has not been effective and can inadvertently marginalize students or make them feel disempowered (Hankin et al., 2011; Schildkraut & Grogan, 2019), especially given that such strategies are disproportionately used in BIPOC communities (Gastic & Johnson, 2015). To date, these approaches have mainly been analyzed in secondary schools rather than IHEs.

Measuring the Built Environment

To understand the strengths and limits of a CPTED approach for prevention, there is a need to examine how aspects of CPTED have been operationalized and measured. Furr-Holden and colleagues (2008, 2010) created an observational method to describe neighborhoods. The School Assessment for Environmental Typology (SAfETy; Bradshaw et al., 2015) extends this work to school environments. This model specifically conceptualizes school safety in three categories that align with CPTED theories, including disorder (e.g., presence of trash and graffiti), surveillance (e.g., lighting and security cameras), and school ownership (e.g., student murals and signs of pride in school). While most previous measures of the environment focused on disorder, the SAfETy includes positive aspects, such as school ownership. Bradshaw et al.’s (2015) work demonstrated that constructs of the built environment identified in communities were also critical in school settings. Their results showed that SAfETY scores related to the observable, physical, built environment of a school were associated with more positive perceptions of the overall school climate.

The Built Environment and Campus Sexual Violence Prevention

The SAfETY provides a foundation for examining the role of the built environment in campus sexual violence prevention. The main, overarching goal of sexual violence prevention is reducing perpetration (DeGue et al., 2014). A secondary goal is to increase prosocial bystander action. Bystanders have the opportunity to facilitate primary prevention by interrupting risky situations before they escalate, as well as to shape norms and behavioral expectations that disapprove of aggressive, harmful, and violent behavior and support connection, care, and a sense of responsibility for the well-being of others (Banyard, 2015). An emerging body of work has demonstrated a number of positive outcomes of bystander intervention education efforts in high schools and on college campuses (Kettrey & Marx, 2019), including lower rates of both perpetration and victimization (Coker et al., 2016). Bystander intervention fits with the notion of an interconnected ecological approach, in which the well-being of the individual and the collective are recognized as interdependent (Chan et al., 2016).

The role of the built environment in supporting this work has only begun to be identified. Based on our review of the extant literature, we propose a conceptual model that integrates an interconnected SEM model (Chan et al., 2016); the strengths-based aspects of CPTED theories (Bradshaw et al., 2015; Cozens & Love, 2017); and a collaborative, social justice-based, power-conscious approach to the design of space (Hong, 2017; Lee, 2020; Linder, 2018; McCauley et al., 2019). This model adapts previous CPTED work in three main ways. First, most of the work on CPTED has focused on preventing crimes that occur in public spaces, and some are built on the presumption that these crimes are committed by strangers. However, campus sexual violence is most often committed by someone known by the victim and often in spaces that are not necessarily public. Thus, environmental strategies must be specific to campus sexual violence. Second, the proposed conceptual model infuses strengths-based, resilience-rooted nomenclature to the CPTED dimensions that are often described using deficit/fear-focused frameworks, which leads to a focus on limitations rather than opportunities (see Table 1). Third, the conceptual model uses a social justice and power-conscious framework (Hong, 2017; Linder, 2018), and highlights the importance of context, including historical, cultural, political, and demographic factors, such as racism and other forms of systemic oppression that are connected to how physical spaces are designed, built, maintained, or changed. Figure 1 outlines the dimensions of the built environment and how key factors mediate their relationship to these outcomes, further described below.

Table 1.

Dimensions of Physical Spaces for Campus Sexual Violence.

Dimension of physical spaces for campus sexual violence prevention	Summary of findings for changes in nomenclature based on extant literature	Examples of potential implications for campus sexual violence prevention
Active guardianship and monitoring	“Surveillance” is a key domain identified across CPTED models, but can be misused to target certain people or situations and can lead to the use of strategies (like metal detectors) that signal fear and punishment rather than strengths and connection. “Active guardianship” (Reynald, 2011) promotes the idea of engaging community members in looking out for one another. In addition, “monitoring” has been identified as a protective factor for youth (see Segura et al., under review) as it suggests that the norm is for people to be connected and check in with one another	Decrease opportunities for crime to occur through mechanical surveillance provided by the institution (e.g., security measures) and natural surveillance (e.g., presence of others). Provide training and skill development for all members of the university community to engage in prosocial bystander action. Include architects in sexual violence prevention planning to help re-envision the design of spaces on campus to facilitate guardianship
Organization and investment	Addressing the level of “disorder” and “order” is emphasized in CPTED frameworks but often is deficit-oriented. Other CPTED work has “Organization,” which supports a focus on physical spaces that build upon community strengths and demonstrate an institutional investment to help set a foundation for violence prevention	Maintain university property to create a sense of institutional investment and care (e.g., swift responses to sexist, racist, and homophobic graffiti). Provide comfortable and well-kept spaces where community members can congregate informally and for social gatherings. Consider innovative design for residence halls and classrooms to facilitate sense of community
Sense of ownership and access to power	“Territoriality” describes a domain across CPTED research that explains the importance of a sense of demarcating and “owning” space. Revisions of CPTED have used the term “ownership” (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 2015) to convey a sense of pride and responsibility for the space. This emphasizes the importance of engaging communities in designing and maintaining physical spaces, which requires sharing access to power. The “ownership” category also speaks to the importance of setting behavioral scripts and expectations	Provide visual messages about the university’s expectations and commitment to a welcoming community through signs, media campaigns, and posters with “QR codes” that lead to more information on websites. Post art, logos, and murals that are multicultural and promote a sense of inclusion and pride. Include student voices in space design and prevention planning
Placement and mix of health spaces	Previous work has focused largely on the density of health-depreciating outlets (e.g., places that sell alcohol) as an important aspect of the built environment linked to violence. Other work has begun to investigate whether the presence of health-promoting settings (e.g., gyms), may mitigate these relationships and support violence prevention. The placement, proximity, and mix of health-depreciating and health-promoting settings are important to consider	Work with the local community to address access to alcohol and other health-depreciating outlets. Develop and communicate clear policies related to alcohol and other substance use by students. Integrate substance use information into sexual violence prevention education programs. Ensure close proximity of health-promoting settings for students (e.g., provide health fitness facilities and group study rooms in residence halls). Provide visual messages throughout the campus about the need to engage in health-promoting behaviors. Consult with community developers to ensure that there are plans to build health-promoting facilities in the community

Note. See Figure 1 for depiction of how these dimensions lead to pathways to decrease sexual violence perpetration, increase bystander behavior, and ultimately reduce victimization.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Dimensions of the Built Environment on Campus

Physical spaces that help prevent sexual violence include a number of dimensions, adapted from Bradshaw et al.’s (2015) categories of (a) surveillance, which in this article we label “active guardianship and monitoring”; (b) order, which we label “organization and investment”; and (c) sense of ownership, to which we have added “access to power.” In addition, we add the presence, placement, and mix of health-depreciating and -promoting outlets, which we label “placement and mix of health spaces.” Table 1 explains the shift in nomenclature for these dimensions. Below, we describe each dimension and its application to campus sexual violence in more detail.

Dimension 1: Active Guardianship and Monitoring

The monitoring, or guardianship, of physical spaces is a critical aspect of sexual violence prevention. This aligns with the idea of surveillance, a key domain across CPTED models. However, the term “surveillance” can be loaded and suggests the targeting of situations or people that may be perceived as risky or suspicious. Indeed, perceptions of who may commit acts of violence are often based on stereotypes, myths, and misinformation fueled by systemic oppression such as racism and classism, as illustrated by acts such as racial profiling (Welch, 2007). White supremacists have used the idea of surveillance to justify vigilantism and violence against Black individuals in the name of maintaining the safety of neighborhoods and other spaces. Applied to sexual violence, the myth of the Black male rapist has permeated our history, with the supposed protection of White women used as an excuse for racial violence (Davis, 1981; McMahon & Kahn, 2018); college campuses are not immune from these concerns (Allen, 2018). Instead of surveillance, the idea of active guardianship (Reynald, 2010, 2011) suggests that campus community members, including faculty, staff, and students, can engage in prevention by diffusing potentially violent situations and helping to model positive behavioral expectations.

Increased monitoring can potentially help reduce violent behavior, including certain types of sexual violence, by limiting the opportunity to offend (Clarke, 1995; Reynald, 2015). This can occur through the implementation of safety features, such as lighting and video cameras, but also through the presence of people. Routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) suggests that crime is more likely to happen in the absence of capable guardians who can help by monitoring behavior and intervening in risky situations. Such individuals can provide natural active guardianship (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Schwartz et al., 2001) and expand on the limited and potentially problematic views of surveillance noted earlier related to campus lighting and call boxes as sexual assault prevention strategies. In addition, monitoring can be construed in positive ways, such as parental monitoring, which involves caring, connecting, and checking in with one another (Segura et al., 2021).

Pathway for Using Active Guardianship and Monitoring to Prevent Perpetration.

Active guardianship as applied to preventing campus sexual violence is most obviously recognized through decreasing opportunities for crime to occur. On many campuses, measures to improve mechanical monitoring have included limiting physical access to campus and increasing visibility of security (see Kyle et al., 2017). Additionally, practices that represent institutional guardianship include lighting; video cameras; emergency call boxes; and the use of locks, gates, swipe cards, and other barriers to restrict access to certain buildings or spaces (Schafer et al., 2018). The provision of safety features likely facilitates risk reduction behaviors, decreases perceptions of disorder and fear of crime, and conveys an institution’s commitment to the safety of its community members (Chacon et al., 2018; Leclerc et al., 2016). However, there remains a lack of research investigating the effectiveness of such measures and mixed student perceptions regarding these tactics (Kyle et al., 2017; Schafer et al., 2018). Thus, further work is needed to understand the impact of such safety measures, particularly to understand if they are effective for particular types of crime. For example, safety features such as locks and gates may be more effective for stranger-related crimes. As we discuss below, there may be other ways to convey institutional guardianship, through design of positive community gathering spaces or even through the presence of visual messages (e.g., bus wraps and prevention-related art) that convey that the institution takes issues of sexual assault seriously and promotes respectful relationships.

The implementation of safety measures can become complicated when applied to the issue of campus sexual violence. For example, work conducted on college women’s fear of crime indicates that they are specifically afraid of rape by strangers (Fisher & Sloan, 2003). On the contrary, sexual violence more often happens behind closed doors and often between people who know each other. Focusing only on safety precautions in shared spaces can potentially create a false sense of security and reinforce myths that most assaults happen by a stranger jumping out of the bushes (Kelly & Torres, 2006; Linder & Lacy, 2020). Instead, we should focus on design features that promote strengths and the types of positive behaviors that may reduce risk and promote well-being. For example, Hirsch and Khan (2020) argue that the design of residence halls is especially problematic, going as far as to say that “dorm life is a fundamental sexual assault opportunity structure” (p. 89). They point out that if students want to spend time together, intimately or not, the only place to sit in a residence hall room is often a bed, which has its own sexual cues. Additionally, they found that many students believe that going to someone’s residence hall room implies consent to sexual activity.

Beyond residence halls, alternative settings for students to socialize, especially off campus, may be bars where the presence of alcohol introduces its own risk factors. Savard et al. (2020) suggest that women’s risk for sexual assault significantly increases in settings considered to be “masculine,” such as bars and nightclubs. In addition, the ability to go off-campus to socialize requires financial resources, which limits options for many students. Thus, creative and inclusive options are needed. Collaborative design approaches on campus would include the perspectives of prevention practitioners, as well as a diverse group of students in helping to develop alternatives. To date, much of the work on sexual violence prevention has focused on settings such as parties with alcohol, yet these scenarios are often based on dominant, White, heterosexual student experiences and do not reflect the ways that other students socialize.

Pathway for Using Active Guardianship and Monitoring to Increase Prosocial Bystander Action.

The idea of monitoring is relevant to the aforementioned routine activity theory (Schwartz et al., 2001). Bystander intervention approaches also hold particular promise in helping to expand notions of campus safety and guardianship. Bystander intervention education allows campus community members, particularly students, to help fill the role of capable guardians by looking out for one another and intervening in risky or harmful situations (Banyard, 2015). Peer educator programs are based on the idea that students can serve as “monitors” of one another’s behavior to shape the behavioral expectations and norms for others on campus. In fact, peers and those who belong to certain subgroups on campus (e.g., student-athletes) may hold status among their community that provides them with important influencing possibilities (McMahon, 2009). Research demonstrates that peer influences are a significant predictor of an individual’s willingness to engage in prosocial bystander behavior to address sexual violence (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Casey & Lindhorst, 2009; Fabiano et al., 2003). Thus, some bystander intervention education programs aim to recruit “popular opinion leaders” to model healthy behavior and normalize prosocial intervention (Coker et al., 2011). Practitioners can consider this type of intervention for their campuses and partner with student organizations to include their leaders. Training should engage these leaders in conversations about how they might bring prevention into the physical spaces they inhabit on campus. Improving the design of physical spaces for socializing could also allow bystanders to better perceive what is happening at social events. Many students gather in basement parties, crowded residence hall rooms, or bars where it is difficult to converse or see what is occurring around them (Hirsch & Khan, 2020). Designing gathering spaces with more visibility may facilitate greater recognition of situations warranting intervention (Burn, 2009).

While most campus bystander intervention education programs focus on engaging students, there is also a need to engage faculty, staff, and administrators. This can include those who work directly with students, such as faculty, staff, and personnel in residence life and student affairs, and those in supportive positions who may be most likely to witness situations needing intervention, such as dining hall and maintenance staff (McMahon et al., 2019). Campus prevention practitioners can offer programs for faculty and staff to help acknowledge their role in prevention.

Dimension 2: Organization and Investment

Crime prevention through environmental design frameworks emphasizes the importance of addressing disorder and disorganization within environments, including both physical (e.g., deterioration of space and buildings) and social (behaviors that are disruptive or threatening such as harassment or intoxication; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). However, this approach can be construed as blaming of individuals and communities and has been used to endorse deficit views of BIPOC communities. In our conceptual model, we propose shifting the focus to indicators of organized, ordered physical spaces, and including the term investment. Both perceived and observed indicators of neighborhood disorder have been associated with health behaviors (Brown et al., 2014), and thus, both are included in our conceptual model.

Pathway for Using Organization and Investment to Prevent Perpetration.

For college students, certain “disordered” social spaces (e.g., overcrowded parties and bars) may provide opportunities for the perpetration of sexual violence (Graham et al., 2017; Hirsch & Khan, 2020). While addressing disorder is essential, so too is a focus on creating a built environment that conveys order and organization. For example, if misogynist or racist graffiti is allowed to remain on a university building wall, it indicates that the institution does not care about the message or behavior; yet, if the university acts swiftly to remove the graffiti and holds accountable those who created it, an intolerance for this type of behavior is conveyed. Thus, decreasing visible signs of crime and disorder can reduce further criminal activity, while also decreasing the belief that violence is acceptable (Bradshaw et al., 2015). Bradshaw and colleagues (2015) found that a positive appearance was related to positive school climate in student and staff surveys.

Pathway for Using Organization and Investment to Increase Prosocial Bystander Action.

Social order also supports helpful bystander intervention, largely by impacting key mediators such as increasing a sense of trust in the institution, a sense of responsibility to the community, and a sense of collective efficacy, all of which are related to increased bystander action (Rothman et al., 2019). Research has pointed to the importance of trust by students in their institutions as it is linked to a greater likelihood to intervene and report violence to campus authorities (Sulkowski, 2011). However, there is evidence that students with marginalized racial, gender, and sexual identities do not have the same sense of trust in authorities or institutions due to a history of racist and oppressive policies (Ollen et al., 2017; Worthen & Wallace, 2017). In one study, students of color and those who identified as LGBTQ+ commented that in order to feel empowered as bystanders, they need additional institutional commitment to social justice for all students (McMahon et al., 2020). Thus, the intentional design of spaces that convey this sense of commitment is necessary to help foster a sense of belonging and responsibility.

In addition to the strengthening of trust between students and the institution, the availability of well-kept spaces on campuses invites people to congregate and socialize, which can help promote socially ordered behavior, including a sense of community and responsibility for one another (Lee et al., 2014; Reynald, 2010). Fostering a sense of responsibility for others is regarded as a protective factor against sexual violence and encourages prosocial bystander intervention approaches designed to reduce sexual violence (Banyard, 2015). Research in the field of sexual violence prevention demonstrates that social cohesion and collective efficacy impact willingness to take prosocial action to intervene (Banyard, 2008; Banyard et al., 2018; Banyard & Moynihan, 2011; Edwards et al., 2014). Physical disorganization, in contrast, is linked to an increased sense of fear and decreased sense of collective efficacy among community members more generally (Cantillon, 2006; Plank et al., 2009; Sampson et al., 1997; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). More work is needed to better understand how improvements in campus physical infrastructure through physical plant upkeep (e.g., creating inviting student gatherings or study spaces near classrooms where students are waiting) may diminish concerns about sexual violence and other problems. While the current paper focuses mainly on sexual assault prevention for students, some of the same aspects of the current conceptual model could also impact issues like sexual harassment in the workplace for faculty and staff.

A large body of research explores how campus design impacts learning, much of which addresses the importance of building community and connection among students (Strange & Banning, 2015), which can also be viewed as contributing to sexual violence prevention. For example, there is evidence that certain types of residential living arrangements, such as traditional corridor-style rooms in residence halls, foster a stronger sense of community than others, such as high-rise buildings and clustered/suite designs (see Strange & Banning, 2015 for a review). Similarly, research demonstrates that living and learning communities, in which student housing is determined based on shared interests, help to build peer connections and sense of community among students (Smith, 2018). Other universities have begun to explore the creation of intentional campus neighborhoods, which replicate residential neighborhoods (Strange & Banning, 2015). More generally, the campus layout can be intentionally designed to facilitate community among students; for example, evidence suggests that having buildings within close proximity increases the chances for interaction and thus greater connection (Strange & Banning, 2015). The field of sexual violence prevention should draw from this work to help increase the protective factors of sense of community, connection, and responsibility for one another (Banyard et al., 2018).

Dimension 3: Sense of Ownership and Access to Power

In CPTED literature, territoriality refers to a community’s shared sense of space, identity, and behavioral standards (Cozens & Love, 2015). Applied to schools, this dimension has been used to describe students’ sense of pride, shared identity, involvement, and subsequently, expectations for positive behavior that demonstrate their care for the shared space (Killeen et al., 2003; Vagi et al., 2018). The term territoriality can convey a sense of competitive, power-based ownership; to avoid this, Bradshaw et al. (2015) use the term ownership, which can be observed in physical spaces through markers such as art, signs, and the posting of positive behavioral expectations and shared values. A key aspect of ownership is having the power to participate in decision-making about the physical spaces within a community.

The idea of ownership and access to power speaks to the need to include student voices in space design and prevention planning. Banyard et al. (2018) found that students’ perceptions of their level of influence on their campus are related to their engagement and bystander intervention. Edwards et al. (2016) suggest inviting students to help create and deliver prevention messages. Many critiques of CPTED note that community members who are the most important stakeholders are often left out of community design and planning decisions. When administrators are designing new buildings on campus, they should include students to grant them power in decision-making and also help engage their ownership.

Pathway for Using Sense of Ownership and Access to Power to Prevent Perpetration.

Physical spaces that engender a sense of pride and shared behavioral expectations can potentially prevent perpetration through a number of factors. When community members feel a sense of ownership in their community, they may be more likely to ensure that it is well-kept and ordered, with more opportunities for social control and monitoring (Lee et al., 2014).

Media campaigns and messaging that promote positive behavioral expectations can use both direct and indirect pathways to impact behavior. Direct methods include appealing to viewers’ cognitive or emotional responses; indirect methods include encouraging discussion about norms (Wakefield et al., 2010). Visual signs about positive behavioral expectations can help convey information, as well as a set of expected community standards. They can also encourage prevention conversations with peers or others; the provision of discussion prompts has been found to be an effective strategy with parents and incoming college students around issues of alcohol-related sexual violence (Testa et al., 2010).

Pathway for Using Sense of Ownership and Access to Power to Increase Prosocial Bystander Action.

The dimension of ownership and access to power is especially important in the pathway to increasing prosocial bystander intervention by working through mediators such as increasing a sense of belonging, establishing prosocial social norms, and bolstering institutional trust. The posting of art, logos, or murals can convey a shared sense of identity and pride, which can lead to a sense of community connectedness (Killeen et al., 2003). Using an intersectional perspective (Crenshaw, 1991), it is important to ensure that all students, not just those from dominant identities, are able to contribute to the design of space. An example of a community-based, strengths-focused approach to designing spaces is creative placemaking, a concept focused on the ways that the intentional and collaborative design of space can support a community’s well-being, particularly for Black (Edwards, 2017) and indigenous (Nejad et al., 2020) communities. On college campuses, it is important for students with various identities to have the opportunity to contribute to the design of safe, welcoming spaces. Many campuses have centers designed for women, cultural groups, and LGBTQ+ students that can serve as models. These are often important but separate locations and spaces. Lessons learned by these organizations could be carried outward to create safe spaces in other areas of campuses.

The dimension of ownership also leads to increased prosocial bystander action by influencing social norms, or beliefs about types of acceptable behavior, which are believed to influence one’s own behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011). Research demonstrates that perceptions of peer norms are an important predictor of one’s own behavior related to sexual violence aggression as well as bystander intervention (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Fabiano et al., 2003). A number of social norms marketing campaigns have demonstrated positive results, particularly on students’ willingness to intervene as helpful bystanders (see Mennicke et al., 2018). These marketing campaigns typically use posters that encourage prosocial action, thus conveying positive behavioral expectations (Potter, 2012). Potter and colleagues (2011) have emphasized that it is important for those viewing the images on posters to be able to identify with them; therefore, as practitioners design such campaigns, it is critical that they include students of color and those from various racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual identities. Visual messaging and ownership also communicate institutional values, which can potentially inculcate a sense of trust and thus serve as a protective factor against the feeling of institutional betrayal or the sense that universities do not really care about the topic or those who are victimized (Smith & Freyd, 2014). Efforts to create welcoming climates will help build trust and a sense of community among students and with the larger institution, all of which are protective factors for sexual violence.

Visual signage also provides information on resources, which can link campus community members (faculty, staff, and students) to important services and prevention opportunities. Having accessible resources has been recommended in numerous best practices documents (White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, 2014) and helps make students feel supported and more likely to engage in prevention and support peers who may experience sexual violence (Moylan & Javorka, 2020). Practitioners may want to consider providing resource information throughout the campus in places such as bathrooms and other shared spaces.

Dimension 4: Placement and Mix of Health Spaces

In our conceptual model, we suggest an additional dimension that focuses on the physical placement, density, and mix of health-depreciating settings (e.g., places that can facilitate a negative impact on physical and mental health such as alcohol and tobacco outlets; unhealthy food) and health-promoting (e.g., places that can facilitate a positive impact on physical and mental health such as farmer’s markets, gyms, and community health centers) settings located in the campus and surrounding community. A substantial body of research from many fields examines the density of health-depreciating settings, commonly referred to as disease-promoting settings when considering environmental prevention strategies (Brown et al., 2016; Freudenberg, 2005; Lippy & DeGue, 2016; Morton et al., 2014; Scribner et al., 2010). Less work has been done on exploring the role of health-promoting settings related to the occurrence of crime and violence in the community (Matzopoulous et al., 2020) or on campus; however, based on our research, we assert that this environmental factor may be crucial. When examining these settings, one must consider not only their presence or absence but also their placement (i.e., are they easily accessible?). Below, we consider ways that these settings in the built environment may impact campus sexual violence prevention.

Pathway for Using the Placement and Mix of Health Spaces to Prevent Perpetration.

The bulk of research on health-related settings is focused on the relationship between violence and alcohol outlet densities (the number of physical locations where alcohol is available per geographic area) in communities. There is a strong body of evidence demonstrating the links between alcohol consumption and sexual violence perpetration (see reviews by Abbey, 2011; Tharp et al., 2012). Most of this work suggests that alcohol use is not the cause of sexual aggression; rather, when combined with other risk factors and predispositions, it increases likelihood of perpetration.

On college campuses, alcohol has been identified as a key risk factor for some men engaging in acts of sexual violence (Abbey, 2002). Toomey et al.’s (2007) review, specific to college campuses, demonstrated that alcohol outlet density was related to increased consumption of alcohol in addition to increased markers of social disorganization. While scholars and practitioners urge that reducing alcohol use on campuses requires a multi-pronged framework that includes education, social norms, policy design, and more, the role of the physical environment is also important.

The health-promoting university framework outlines ways in which health can be incorporated into the built environment on campus, such as opportunities for physical activity and healthy eating; improvement of green spaces, cafeterias, and places to study and rest; access to cultural activities; tobacco-free spaces; and safe and ergonomic workplaces (Suarez-Reyes et al., 2019). Those working in health promotion and sexual violence prevention can collaborate with planners and students to consider how campus design can help achieve multiple goals for well-being. For example, a growing body of research suggests that physical exercise and mindfulness practices promote regulatory strengths, like emotion regulation, that can reduce use of aggression.

Pathway for Using the Placement and Mix of Health Spaces to Increase Prosocial Bystander Action.

Scholars have noted that the density of alcohol outlets is related to social disorganization, which then inhibits collective efficacy and community connection (Lippy & DeGue, 2016), two essential factors in promoting prosocial bystander intervention (Banyard, 2015). In addition, an increasing body of evidence demonstrates that alcohol use is negatively related to willingness to intervene as a prosocial bystander (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Leone & Parrott, 2019; Orchowski et al., 2016).

Health-promoting aspects of the built environment can also facilitate bystander intervention by providing spaces for gatherings and positive social interactions. There is a large body of research exploring health promotion on college campuses (see Suarez-Reyes et al., 2019). This work often includes a rich array of student life activities such as intramural competitions, student clubs based on interests, and leisure activities designed to promote well-being. With student input, practitioners and administrators at IHEs could also build community among harder-to-reach populations or non-traditional students, such as graduate students, LGBTQ+ students, students returning to school later in life, international students, and commuter students.

Contextual Factors and Limitations of the Model

The role of the built environment must be considered with careful attention to a number of contextual factors, including demographic, cultural, political, and historical influences (Hill & Thies, 2010; Randolph & Thyer, 2010), which may limit its potential. Here, the ideas of setting specificity and setting commonality are particularly important to consider, meaning that some prevention efforts may make sense across settings, but others may need to be adapted to a particular context. Physical space may not operate in the same way and may not have the same impact in certain contexts. For example, Sampson and Raudenbush (2004) identified that racial, ethnic, and socio-economic features more significantly influence perceptions of “disorder” and “bad neighborhoods” than the presence of observed disorder, thus highlighting the role of cultural stereotypes and racism in evaluations of community spaces. As a consequence, labeling certain spaces as “disordered” can continue the cycle of stigmatization (Jacoby et al., 2018). Policies and practices implemented to address perceived disorder, such as broken windows policing and gentrification, have been critiqued as racist and oppressive (Green et al., 2006). A history of racism and systematic oppression through practices such as redlining may alter the salience of certain environmental strategies (Hillier, 2003; Jacoby et al., 2018; Lee, 2020). Thus, the suggestion of environmental modifications in certain neighborhoods may be met with justified reluctance. Similarly, any modifications to campus environments must contend with historical context and systemic forms of oppression such as racism. Because campuses are situated in larger neighborhoods, the impact of environmental modifications must be considered not only for those on the campus but also the larger community.

There are other factors that may interfere with the ability to create built environments that support the goals of sexual violence prevention and thereby limit the application of the conceptual model. Factors such as cultural and campus norms, policies, resources, and readiness for change may either inhibit or enhance the effectiveness of modifications to the physical environment. Moylan and Javorka (2020) highlight the need for prevention efforts to take into account campus-level variations in culture, especially around issues like alcohol use, fraternities, athletics, experiential learning, size, and rural/urban setting, all of which have been associated with lesser or greater occurrence of sexual violence in the research literature. In addition, it is essential to consider the history and culture of the IHE related to addressing sexual violence and other forms of violence, as changing physical spaces on campuses in which there is minimal administrative buy-in to effective violence prevention may do little to impact the effect of prevention programming. There may be competing priorities for administrators to address and resource allocation to sexual violence efforts may therefore be limited. Lastly, policies and their implementation at the institution, state, and federal level can impact prevention efforts (Moylan & Javorka, 2020). For example, modifications to the built environment may have more or less of an impact depending on how a campus interprets and implements Title IX policy regulations. Further research is needed to test whether adjustments to the built environment have more positive outcomes based on these moderators.

Contextual factors must be analyzed to determine the salience and relevance of environmental modifications in an overall prevention portfolio. For example, changing physical spaces may have different effects on an urban versus a rural campus or a large versus a small campus. Further work is needed to test the influence of the physical environment on prevention outcomes and to determine what moderators may impact the pathways, as well as which aspects may have setting specificity or commonality. We hope that the model presented here helps to set a course for research that advances the efforts of IHEs to prevent sexual violence on their campuses.

Next Steps

Empirical studies are needed to test and further develop the conceptual model presented here. One direction for future research is to clarify whether the multidimensional construct of physical prevention space should be conceptualized as an aggregate construct, a superordinate construct, a profile construct, or rather as a set of distinct constructs (Law et al., 1998). The fundamental distinction between these conceptualizations involves the direction of causality that is assumed between the more general construct (i.e., physical prevention space) and its dimensions (e.g., active guardianship and organization). In our model, physical prevention space was conceptualized as an aggregate construct; as can be seen in Figure 1, the direction of causality flows from the dimensions to the construct. Aggregate constructs are considered as composites of dimensions that cause or form more general constructs. Conversely, superordinate constructs are viewed as general concepts that are manifested or reflected by their dimensions. Profile constructs are considered not as algebraic functions of their dimensions but rather as comprising different patterns of dimensional characteristics. Although we viewed physical prevention space as an aggregate construct, we acknowledge that future research is needed to test whether this model is conceptually appropriate.

Another direction for future research is to examine whether changes in the built environment may moderate the effectiveness of traditional, individual-level prevention programs. Several theoretical models argue that the physical features of space are an essential component of crime prevention; however, when considering prevention of campus sexual violence specifically, the built environment may actually be working to either inhibit or enhance preexisting campus prevention efforts. For example, an institution with a high level of physical prevention space (as measured by indicators of surveillance, order, markers of ownership, high density of health-promoting outlets, and low density of health-depreciating outlets) may experience greater impacts of bystander prevention programming, compared to an institution with a low level of physical prevention space. Therefore, the role of physical space should be examined in tandem with ongoing prevention programming at IHEs, rather than as a sole form of sexual violence prevention. However, further research is needed in order to more fully understand the role of physical space and whether it acts as a moderator of prevention programs across IHEs.

A collaborative approach among researchers, practitioners, students, and administrators is needed to advance knowledge about the role of the built environment in sexual violence prevention work. Those who directly deliver or receive prevention services on campus can suggest ways to connect modifications of the built environment and other prevention initiatives on campus, as well as gauge their feasibility. Practitioners and administrators can consider the integration of environmental factors into their work and advocate for greater attention to the role of physical spaces in research, policy, and campus design. For example, prevention initiatives could be discussed and shared with those responsible for campus buildings and facilities to acknowledge the role of the built environment in prevention efforts and to help set a foundation for further planning. These are campus professionals who may otherwise have little interaction with preventionists. When campuses are renovating or building new projects, a prevention impact analysis could be part of the assessment process. Modeled on social impact assessments (Esteves et al., 2012), such an analysis could examine how the proposed design might contribute to hot spots or, conversely, promote a sense of community and foster prevention goals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, studies on environmental-level dimensions that define how the built environment on campuses contributes to prevention are needed to advance research on campus sexual violence beyond its current focus on individual-level factors. We offer a conceptual model to guide future research and practice. Research on the physical prevention spaces of IHEs could lead to truly environmental-level interventions that increase prosocial actions of bystanders, decrease perpetration of violence and, ultimately, reduce the incidence of sexual violence on college campuses. Researchers must clarify the features of the built environment that influence the sexual experiences of college students in order to move the sexual violence prevention field forward.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was in part supported by NCATS grant KL2TR003018 (Brown).

Author Biographies

Victoria Banyard, Ph.D. is a Professor in the School of Social Work at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. She is also Associate Director of the Center for Research on Ending Violence and Associate Dean for Faculty Development. She has published over 150 articles on interpersonal violence and prevention effectiveness.

Qiana L. Brown, PhD, MPH, LCSW, is an epidemiologist, social worker, translational scientist and assistant professor at the Rutgers School of Social Work and School of Public Health. Her research examines system-level change to improve maternal and child health – centering on preventing prenatal substance use and examining the role of the environment and policy in health outcomes.

Julia Cusano, MSW, is a doctoral candidate at the Rutgers University School of Social Work and also serves as a Research Specialist at the School’s Center for Research on Ending Violence. Her research focuses on violence against women, specifically in the college population, as well as disclosure and formal help-seeking among sexual violence survivors.

Antoinette Y. Farmer, PhD, is Professor and Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Social Work and faculty affiliate, Centers for Prevention Science and Violence Against Women and Children. Her research focuses on the predictors and outcomes of parenting behavior, high-risk adolescent behaviors, and research methods that are appropriate for studying diverse groups.

Sarah McMahon, Ph.D., MSW is an Associate Professor at the Rutgers University School of Social Work and also serves as the Director for the School’s Center for Research on Ending Violence. Her research focuses on using ecological, social-justice based frameworks to examine the prevention of interpersonal violence, as well as mechanisms for engaging individuals, communities and institutions in social change.

N. Andrew Peterson, PhD, is Professor and Associate Dean for Research with the School of Social Work at Rutgers University. He also is Director of the Center for Prevention Science and Co-Director of the Northeast & Caribbean Prevention Technology Transfer Center. His research has focused on empowerment-based efforts to prevent or ameliorate conditions that cause social and health disparities.

References

Abbey

(2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Supplement, 63(14), 118-128. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118.

Abbey

(2011). Alcohol's role in sexual violence perpetration: Theoretical explanations, existing evidence and future directions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30(5), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00296.x.

Aiyer

S. M.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Morrel-Samuels

Reischl

T. M.

(2015). From broken windows to busy streets: A community empowerment perspective. Health Education and Behavior, 42(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198114558590.

Allen

(2018). (In)visible men on campus: Campus racial climate and subversive black masculinities at a predominantly white liberal arts university. Gender and Education, 32(7), 843–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1533924.

Astor

R. A.

Benbenishity

Meyer

H. A.

(2004). Monitoring and mapping student victimization in schools. Theory Into Practice, 43(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4301_6.

Banyard

V. L.

(2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83.

Banyard

V. L.

(2014). Improving college campus–based prevention of violence against women: A strategic plan for research built on multipronged practices and policies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521027.

Banyard

V. L.

(2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities. Springer.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2011). Variation in bystander behavior related to sexual and intimate partner violence prevention: Correlates in a sample of college students. Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023544.

10.

Banyard

V. L.

Rizzo

A. J.

Bencosme

Cares

A. C.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2018). How community and peer perceptions promote college students’ pro-social bystander actions to prevent sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), 3855–3879. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518777557.

11.

Bradshaw

Milam

Furr-Holden

Lindstrom Johnson

(2015). The school assessment for environmental typology (SAfETy): An observational measure of the school environment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9743-x.

12.

Brown

A. L.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2010). Personal and perceived peer attitudes supporting sexual aggression as predictors of male college students’ willingness to intervene against sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334400.

13.

Brown

Q. L.

Milam

A. J.

Bowie

J. V.

Ialongo

N. S.

Gaskin

D. J.

Furr-Holden

(2016). The moderating role of gender in the relationship between tobacco outlet exposure and tobacco use among African American young adults. Prevention Science, 17(3), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0622-3.

14.

Brown

Q. L.

Milam

A. J.

Smart

M. J.

Johnson

R. M.

Linton

S. L.

Furr-Holden

C. D. M.

Ialongo

N. S.

(2014). Objective and perceived neighborhood characteristics and tobacco use among young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 134, 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.11.005.

15.

Burn

S. M.

(2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60(11-12), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5.

16.

Cantillon

(2006). Community social organization, parents, and peers as mediators of perceived neighborhood block characteristics on delinquent and prosocial activities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37(1-2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-9000-9.

17.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Harps

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

Kranz

Herbison

Madden

(2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. Westat. https://www.aau.edu/issues/climate-survey-sexual-assault-and-sexual-misconduct.

18.

Casey

E. A.

Lindhorst

T. P.

(2009). Toward a multi-level, ecological approach to the primary prevention of sexual assault: Prevention in peer and community contexts. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334129.

19.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) . (2020). Using environmental design to prevent school violence. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/cpted.html.

20.

Chacon

J. C.

Nimi

H. M.

Watanabe

Ono

Paskevicius

(2018). Reducing fear of crime through design against crime. Journal of the Science of Design, 2(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.11247/jsd.2.1_1_29.

21.

Chan

W. Y.

Hollingsworth

M. A.

Espelage

D. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2016). Preventing violence in context: The importance of culture for implementing systemic change. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000021.

22.

Clarke

(1995). Situational crime prevention. Crime and Justice, 19, 91–150. https://doi.org/10.1086/449090.

23.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589.

24.

Coker

A. L.

Bush

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(2016). Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.034.

25.

Coker

A. L.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Williams

C. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Clear

E. R.

Garcia

L. S.

Hegge

L. M.

(2011). Evaluation of green dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211410264.

26.

Collins

P. H.

(1998). The tie that binds: Race, gender and U.S. violence. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5), 918–938. https://doi.org/10.1080/014198798329720.

27.

Costanza-Chock

(2020). Design Justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.

28.

Cozens

Love

(2015). A review and current status of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595440.

29.

Cozens

Love

(2017). The dark side of crime prevention through environment design (CPTED). Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology.

30.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039.

31.

Davis

(1981). Rape, racism and the myth of the black rapist. In Davis

(Author), Women, race and class (Chapter 11). Random House.

32.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Holt

M. K.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

Tharp

A. T.

(2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004.

33.

Dills

Fowler

Payne

(2016). Sexual violence on campus: Strategies for prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/campussvprevention.pdf.

34.

Edwards

E. M.

(2017). “Let’s imagine something different”: Spiritual principles in contemporary African American justice movements and their implications for the built environment. Religions, 8(256), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8120256.

35.

Edwards

K. M.

Haynes

E. E.

Rodenhizer-Stämpfli

K. A.

(2016). High school youth’s reactions to participating in mixed-methodological dating violence research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(3), 220–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616651783.

36.

Edwards

K. M.

Mattingly

M. J.

Dixon

K. J.

Banyard

V. L.

(2014). Community matters: Intimate partner violence among rural young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1-2), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9633-7.

37.

Esteves

A. M.

Franks

Vanclay

(2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.660356.

38.

Fabiano

Perkins

H. W.

Berkowitz

Linkenbach

Stark

(2003). Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52(3), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480309595732.

39.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Taylor & Francis.

40.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J

(2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported? Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 633–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095641.

41.

Fleming

W. M.

Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

(2015). The role of alcohol consumption patterns and pro-social bystander interventions in contexts of gender violence. Violence Against Women, 21(10), 1259–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215592721.

42.

Freudenberg

(2005). Public health advocacy to change corporate practices: Implications for health education practice and research. Health Education & Behavior, 32(3), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198105275044.

43.

Furr-Holden

Campbell

Milam

Smart

Ialongo

Leaf

(2010). Metric properties of the neighborhood inventory for environmental typology (NIfETy): An environmental assessment tool for measuring indicators of violence, alcohol, tobacco, and other drug exposures. Evaluation Review, 34(3), 159–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X10368493.

44.

Furr-Holden

C. D. M.

Smart

M. J.

Pokorni

J. L.

Ialongo

N. S.

Leaf

P. J.

Holder

H. D.

Anthony

J. C.

(2008). The NifETy method for environmental assessment of neighborhood-level indicators of violence, alcohol, and other drug exposure. Prevention Science, 9(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0107-8.

45.

Gastic

Johnson

(2015). Disproportionality in daily metal detector student searches in US public schools. Journal of School Violence, 14(3), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.924074.

46.

Graham

Bernards

Abbey

Dumas

T. M.

Wells

(2017). When women do not want it: Young female bargoers’ experiences with and responses to sexual harassment in social drinking contexts. Violence Against Women, 23(12), 1419–1441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216661037.

47.

Green

Staerklé

Sears

(2006). Symbolic racism and Whites’ attitudes towards punitive and preventive crime policies. Law and Human Behavior, 30(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9020-5.

48.

Hankin

Hertz

Simon

(2011). Impacts of metal detector use in schools: Insights from 15 years of research. Journal of School Health, 81(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00566.x.

49.

Heinze

J. E.

Kursky-Morey

Vagi

K. J.

Reischl

T. M.

Franzen

Pruett

N. K

Cunningham

R. N.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2018). Busy streets theory: The effects of community-engaged greening on violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 62(1-2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12270.

50.

Hill

J. R.

Thies

(2010). Program theory and logic model to address the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(4), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.03.001.

51.

Hillier

(2003). Redlining and the home owners’ loan corporation. Journal of Urban History, 29(4), 394–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144203029004002.

52.

Hirsch

J. S.

Khan

(2020). Sexual citizens: A landmark study of sex, power, and assault on campus. W.W. Norton & Company.

53.

Hong

(2017). Digging up the roots, rustling the leaves: A critical consideration of the root causes of sexual violence and why higher education needs more courage. In Harris

J. C.

Linder

(Eds.), Intersections of identity and sexual violence on campus: Centering minoritized students’ experiences (pp. 23–41). Stylus Publishing, LLC.

54.

Jacoby

Dong

Beard

Wiebe

Morrison

(2018) The enduring impact of historical and structural racism on urban violence in Philadelphia, 199. Social Science & Medicine. http://search.proquest.com/docview/2070444575/.

55.

Kamalu

N. C.

Onyeozili

E. C.

(2018). A critical analysis of the 'broken windows' policing in New York City and its impact: Implications for the criminal justice system and the African American community. African Journal of Criminology & Justice Studies, 11(1), 71–94.

56.

Kelly

B. T.

Torres

(2006). Campus safety: Perceptions and experiences of women students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0007.

57.

Kendi

I. X.

(2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.

58.

Kettrey

H. H.

Marx

R. A.

(2019). The effects of bystander programs on the prevention of sexual assault across the college years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0927-1.

59.

Killeen

J. P.

Evans

G. W.

Danko

(2003). The role of permanent student artwork in students’ sense of ownership in an elementary school. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502250133.

60.

Kyle

M. J.

Schafer

Burruss

A. G. W.

Giblin

M. J.

(2017). Perceptions of campus safety policies: Contrasting the views of students with faculty and staff. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(3), 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9379-x.

61.

Law

K. S.

Wong

C. S.

Mobley

W. H.

(1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741–775. https://doi.org/10.2307/259060.

62.

Leclerc

Chiu

Cale

(2016). Sexual violence against women through the lens of environmental criminology: Toward the accumulation of evidence-based knowledge and crime prevention. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(4), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9300-z.

63.

Lee

Jr. (2020). America’s cities were designed to oppress . Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/how-to-design-justice-into-america-s-cities.

64.

Lee

M. R.

Becker

Ousey

G. C.

(2014). The transformation of pro-violence norms: An integrative review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.003.

65.

Leone

R. M.

Parrott

D. J.

(2019). Acute alcohol intoxication inhibits bystander intervention behavior for sexual aggression among men with high intent to help. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 43(1), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13920.

66.

Linder

(2018). Sexual violence on campus: Power-conscious approaches to awareness, prevention, and response. Emerald Publishing Limited.

67.

Linder

Harris

J. C.

(2017). Conclusion: History, identity, and power-conscious strategies for addressing sexual violence on college campuses. In Harris

J. C.

Linder

(Eds.), Intersections of identity and sexual violence on campus: Centering minoritized students’ experiences (pp. 235–250). Stylus Publishing.

68.

Linder

Lacy

(2020). Blue Lights and pepper spray: Cisgender college women’s perceptions of campus safety and implications of the “Stranger Danger” myth. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(3), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1664195.

69.

Lippy

DeGue

(2016). Exploring alcohol policy approaches to prevent sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 17(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014557291.

70.

Matzopoulos

Bloch

Lloyd

Berens

Bowman

Myers

Thompson

M. L.

(2020). Urban upgrading and levels of interpersonal violence in Cape Town, South Africa: The violence prevention through urban upgrading programme. Social Science & Medicine, 255(1), 112978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112978.

71.

McCauley

H. L.

Campbell

Buchanan

N. T.

Moylan

C. A.

(2019). Advancing theory, methods, and dissemination in sexual violence research to build a more equitable future: An intersectional, community-engaged approach. Violence Against Women, 25(16), 1906–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219875823.

72.

McMahon

J. M.

Kahn

K. B.

(2018). When sexism leads to racism: Threat, protecting women, and racial bias. Sex Roles, 78(9-10), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0828-x.

73.

McMahon

(2009). Hearing from student-athlete peer educators: A qualitative study of the impact of participation in an interpersonal violence peer education group. Academic Athletic Journal, 20(1), 1–28.

74.

McMahon

Burnham

Banyard

V. L.

(2020). Bystander intervention as a prevention strategy for campus sexual violence: Perceptions of historically minoritized college students. Prevention Science, 21(6), 795–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01134-2.

75.

McMahon

Steiner

Snyder

Banyard

(2019). Comprehensive prevention of campus sexual violence: Expanding who is invited to the table. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(4), 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019883275.

76.

Mennicke

Kennedy

S. C.

Gromer

Klem-O’Connor

(2018). Evaluation of a social norms sexual violence prevention marketing campaign targeted toward college men: Attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors over 5 years. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7-8), NP3999–NP4021. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518780411.

77.

Mihinjac

Saville

(2019). Third-generation crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Social Sciences, 8(6), 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8060182.

78.

Morton

C. M.

Simmel

Peterson

N. A.

(2014). Neighborhood alcohol outlet density and rates of child abuse and neglect: Moderating effects of access to substance abuse services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(5), 952–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.01.002.

79.

Moylan

C. A.

Javorka

(2020). Widening the lens: An ecological review of campus sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(1), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018756121.

80.

Nejad

Walker

Newhouse

(2020). Indigenous placemaking and the built environment: Toward transformative urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 25(4), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1641072.

81.

Newman

(1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Macmillan.

82.

Okvat

H. A.

Zautra

A. J.

(2011). Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3-4), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9404-z.

83.

Ollen

E. W.

Ameral

V. E.

Palm Reed

Hines

D. A.

(2017). Sexual minority college students’ perceptions on dating violence and sexual assault. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000180.

84.

Orchowski

L.M.

Berkowitz

Boggis

Oesterle

(2016). Bystander intervention among college men: The role of alcohol and correlates of sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(17), 2824–2846. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581904.

85.

Plank

S. B.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Young

(2009). An application of “broken-windows” and related theories to the study of disorder, fear, and collective efficacy in schools. American Journal of Education, 115(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1086/595669.

86.

Potter

S. J.

(2012). Using a multimedia social marketing campaign to increase active bystanders on the college campus. Journal of American College Health, 60(4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.599350.

87.

Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2011). Using social self-identification in social marketing materials aimed at reducing violence against women on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(5), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365870.

88.

Purifoye

G. Y.

(2017). Transporting urban inequality through public transit designs & systems. City & Community, 16(4), 364–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12266.

89.

Randolph

K. A.

Thyer

(2010). Logic models. In Thyer

(Ed.), The handbook of social work methods (2nd ed., pp. 547–561). Sage Publishing.

90.

Reynald

(2011). Translating CPTED into crime preventive action: A critical examination of CPTED as a tool for active guardianship. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-010-9135-6.

91.

Reynald

D. M.

(2010). Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to monitor, the ability to detect potential offenders & the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 358–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810365904.

92.

Reynald

D. M.

(2015). Environmental design and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986214552618.

93.

Rothman

Edwards

Rizzo

Kearns

Banyard

(2019). Perceptions of community norms and youths’ reactive and proactive dating and sexual violence bystander action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(1-2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12312.

94.

Rothman

E. F.

Paruk

Banyard

(2018). The escalation dating abuse workshop for college students: Results of an efficacy RCT. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431909.

95.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603–651. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1086/210356.

96.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250406700401.

97.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918.

98.

Savard

D. M.

Kelley

T. M.

Merolla

D. M.

(2020). Routine activities and criminal victimization: The significance of gendered spaces. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23-24), 5425–5447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517721170.

99.

Saville

Cleveland

(1997). 2nd generation CPTED: An antidote to the social Y2K virus of urban design [conference session]. 2nd Annual International CPTED Conference (pp. 3–5).

100.

Schafer

J. A.

Lee

Burruss

G. W.

Giblin

M. J.

(2018). College student perceptions of campus safety initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416631804.

101.

Schildkraut

Grogan

(2019). Are metal detectors effective at making schools safer? WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED595716.pdf.

102.

Schwartz

M. D.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Tait

Alvi

(2001). Male peer supportand a feminist routing activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 623–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100095041.

103.

Scribner

R. A.

Mason

K. E.

Simonsen

N. R.

Theall

Chotalia

Johnson

Kessel Schneider

DeJong

(2010). An ecological analysis of alcohol-outlet density and campus-reported violence at 32 US colleges. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71(2), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2010.71.184.

104.

Segura

Banyard

McMahon

Jefferson

(2021). Parents as prevention partners to reduce adolescent dating and sexual violence: A revised conceptual model.

105.

Smith

C. P.

Freyd

J. J.

(2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0037564.

106.

Smith

R. A.

(2018). Connective segregation: Residential learning communities as networks of engagement. The Review of Higher Education, 42(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0032.

107.

Strange

Banning

(2015). Designing for learning: Creating campus environments for student success (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

108.

Suárez-Reyes

Muñoz Serrano

Van den Broucke

(2019). How do universities implement the health promoting university concept? Health Promotion International, 34(5), 1014–1024. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day055.

109.

Sulkowski

M. I.

(2011). An investigation of students’ willingness to report threats of violence in campus communities. Psychology of Violence, 1(1), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021592.

110.

Taylor

B. G.

Mumford

E. A.

Stein

N. D.

(2014). Effectiveness of “Shifting Boundaries” teen dating violence program for subgroups of middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2 Suppl 2), S20–S26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.004.

111.

Testa

Hoffman

Livingston

Turrisi

(2010). Preventing college women’s sexual victimization through parent based intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 11(3), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0168-3.

112.

Tharp

A. T.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Brookmeyer

K. A.

Massertti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

(2012). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012470031.

113.

Toomey

Lenk

K. M.

Wagenaar

A. C.

(2007). Environmental policies to reduce college drinking: An update of research findings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(2), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2007.68.208.

114.

Vagi

K. J.

Stevens

M. R.

Simon

T. R.

Basile

K. C.

Carter

S. P.

Carter

S. L.

(2018). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) characteristics associated with violence and safety in middle schools. The Journal of School Health, 88(4), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12609.

115.

Wakefield

Loken

Homik

(2010). Use of mass media campaigns to change health behavior. The Lancet, 376(9148), 1261–1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4.

116.

Welch

(2007). Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(3), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207306870.

117.

White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault . (2014). Key components of sexual assault crisis intervention/victim service resources. https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/910266/download.

118.

Wilcox

Augustine

M. C.

Clayton

R. R.

(2006). Physical environment and crime and misconduct in Kentucky schools. Journal of Primary Prevention, 27(3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-006-0034-z

119.

Worthen

M. G.

Wallace

S. A.

(2017). Intersectionality and perceptions about sexual assault education and reporting on college campuses. Family Relations, 66(1), 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12240.