......And when people are surrounded by places worth caring about, they are much less likely to vandalize or litter in that place.
100% the case. Interestingly has something of a relationship to the Broken Window theory as well though. It's not simply design, it's maintenance. Less litter attracts less litter; less tagging attracts less tagging.
That said, you can maintain a blank, boring wall all you like, it will attract more tagging than a wall with a mural, or decorative flourishes.
So it's both the aspiration of the space; and the maintenance of same.
I think maybe that's why CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) designs often attract crime (instead of preventing it, which is the point of CPTED)... because that design philosophy creates hostile places that people end up not caring about, thereby provoking carelessness and lowlifes to overtake the space. I think that if you design to create the most comfortable and inspiring places, there will be much less crime & vandalism... while providing significant social benefits (ex. improved mental health).
CPTED has useful elements in it. It's not all back-less benches or hostile over-illumination.
The concept I often talk about of clear, well designed entrances; and of paths that have a sightline to where you expect people want to go; or where you want them to go, is both essential to a good park experience and CPTED.
The CPTED aspect is that is it
a) animates the space with positive use of the space
b) provides people with a clear visual into the space (helps spot problems)
c) provides clear exit strategies for someone who might encounter a problem
Likewise, planning a space to hold up to its intended and likely use is a good maintenance practice; but it therefore also makes the space easier to keep attractive, and therefore able to attract desirable use; which in turn repels problematic use.
The failures of CPTED are those aimed at over-policing, overly prescriptive rules/non-acceptable uses; non-welcoming designs, and sterility etc.
