When it comes to the perennial problem of graffiti, despite the adoption in recent years of costly conventional measures to tackle the issue – such as easy-clean coatings – a walk through any of our urban areas offers a stark reminder that, sadly, we are far from winning the battle to curtail this highly visible and damaging form of anti-social behaviour.
This worrying reality underlines the pressing need for new thinking and, consequently, a more proactive approach to be taken to the whole graffiti issue.
Moving ahead we are likely, therefore, to see technology-based rather than physical or coating solutions coming to the fore.
In this regard there is tremendous potential for measures such as intelligent acoustic detectors (which identify the sound of aerosol spray paint cans being activated) to be deployed in ‘graffiti hotspots’. This will decisive steps to be taken, from the activation of an alarm to the alerting of the authorities.
Detailing the damage
Looking more closely at the impact of this form of criminal behaviour, the sad fact is that graffiti – which appears without permission and can range from simple tagging to more intricate pieces – is far from being a ‘victimless’ crime or a harmless means of ‘self expression’.
Of course the question has to be asked of its proponents: would they be happy to have someone spray paint graffiti on the outside of their own home?
I would venture that, when it comes to their own property and possessions, the answer is going to be a resounding ‘No’.
It’s important, therefore, to set this anti-social activity within the context of the economic and social problems that can arise when graffiti is left unchecked in our communities. Time and again studies have shown that graffiti is likely to have a detrimental impact on the psychological well-being of those who live and work in the areas most affected including, crucially, a rise in the fear of crime.
Money matters: the impact on house prices
With graffiti tending to be seen as an outward sign of community instability and disorder, there is of course the very real potential for house values to be impacted by its presence (as highlighted in the LSE report by Steve Gibbons entitled ‘Crime and Property Prices’ that was published in 2003).
In fact, graffiti tends to have a greater negative influence on property prices compared to less visible offences, such as burglary and violent crime, and can deter valuable inward investment, never mind the actual cost of having to repeatedly remove offending spray paint.
By any measure, the financial outlay required to deal with graffiti remains a major drain on stretched public and private sector resources. To put this into context, the problem for local authorities alone in the UK is estimated to require an outlay in the region of a billion pounds every year to fund remedial action. That doesn’t take into account the cost of having to deal with the issue on our transport systems and around schools, shopping centres, car parks and commercial premises.
Seeking solutions: what’s the best way forward?
So what can be done to draw a line under soaring graffiti attacks?
Historically, a number of approaches have been adopted to attempt to tackle the problem with mixed results.
One method has simply been to deploy additional physical measures such as fencing to prevent offenders gaining access to certain hotspots which can certainly help to reduce attacks in a limited number of locations.
The downside here is that this option is material, time and labour intensive and isn’t always a practical, economically viable or aesthetically pleasing answer as many of the locations where graffiti is found tend to be in public areas (or very large spaces).
In recent years other solutions have also started to come to the fore. Anti-graffiti measures such as special coatings for walls are now being widely applied. However, even this is not foolproof.
Although it helps to avoid re-painting or specialist removal, there is still the initial cost to consider and, crucially, the need for cleaning to take place following an incident.
This obviously has additional financial implications given the prevalence of repeated strikes and the increased challenge for ‘taggers’ to try and keep one step ahead of the cleaning crews.
Advanced acoustic analysis
From the evidence above it’s clear that there’s a pressing need for a proactive alternative: one which provides the opportunity to deliver an alert and warn-off offenders before they can leave their mark on a wall – the point when costs really start to rack-up.
One new economical way of addressing this capability gap head-on is to implement advanced acoustic detection technology to automatically identify the distinctive acoustic fingerprint of aerosol-propelled spray paint.
Compact and unobtrusive graffiti detectors – which are similar in size and cost and no more difficult to fit than standard PIR detectors – have the potential to be deployed well above head height in a wide range of graffiti-prone locations to stop walls being painted on in the first place.
They offer a number of flexible configurations, via relay output connections, working with or independently of security equipment, whether it be sounding an alarm with a local siren in seconds, alerting an Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) or being integrated as a remotely monitored CCTV solution.
In practice this means that the detectors can be used overtly when tied-in with a siren, which can activate automatically on alarm, or in conjunction with an audio-challenge activated by Remote Video Response Centre (RVRC) operators.
This type of action by itself is sufficient to scare off the culprits in more than 90% of cases and to prevent re-offending. A covert approach is also possible where the detector alerts Control Room operators who can then take action (including calling the authorities) so the vandals can be arrested at the scene of their crime.
At a wider level, the sophisticated heuristics and algorithms used to distinguish specific sounds parallel very much what we have witnessed as a trend in the CCTV world with the roll-out of intelligent video content analysis.
By focusing on acoustics, however, the latest graffiti detectors open up a whole new area of analytics which, by its nature, is not dependent on the prevailing lighting conditions for a successful activation.
The key point here is that this makes a detector equally effective day or night.
Designs on detection
Looking in more detail at a compact graffiti detector, the unit is typically designed to be wall-mounted with the range of detection tied-in with the installed height.
Detectors can even be fitted to mobile CCTV towers as part of a temporary monitoring solution.
At a height of 4.5 metres an individual unit can protect up to 7.5 metres over a 120 degree field of coverage below the sensor (based on a typical aerosol paint spray height of 1.2 metres).
Crucially, multiple devices can be linked together to protect even larger areas.
When it comes to the advanced acoustic detection capabilities enabled in units now being deployed, the adoption of so-called ‘phase lock’ technology maximises reliability – a key consideration – and, as experience in the field has demonstrated, allows aerosol paint being sprayed to be picked-up in, typically, 5-8 seconds.
Fighting back against graffiti
To conclude, with the development of new advanced acoustic detection techniques we’re witnessing a step-change in the way that the whole issue of graffiti is being approached.
There is now an opportunity for the security industry and their customers to fight back in the battle against graffiti by deploying an automatic, intelligent and cost-effective system which can recognise the distinctive sound pattern of spray paint and stop attacks before unsightly damage is done – rather than relying on special coatings or physical measures – and, crucially, to make offenders think twice about targeting the area again.
Ian Moore is managing director of Elmdene International