Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders · • graffiti writers’...

1

Tagging and Graffiti:

attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders

Joanne Cox, Fiona Hutton, Mike Rowe

Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington

Report prepared for Ministry of Justice

December 2009

Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders

2

Contents List of tables and figures 3

Glossary 4

Executive summary 5

Introduction 10

Aims and objectives of the study 10

Methodology 11

Overview of survey 12

Overview of focus groups 13

Limitations 15

Literature review and overview of policy 16

Policy developments 21

Findings 24

General attitudes toward graffiti 24

The commissioning of graffiti and tagging 28

Desistance from graffiti and tagging 39

Discussion and conclusion 48

References 53

Appendices

On-line survey 55

Schedule for focus group discussion 61

Profile of focus groups 62


3

List of Tables

Table 1: Profile of respondents

Table 2: Attitudes toward graffiti and tagging

Table 3: Do you think that graffiti is a bad thing? (by gender, age,

ethnicity and participation)

Table 4: Positive and negative attributes of graffiti

Table 5: Have you ever written graffiti?

Table 6: Property selected for graffiti

Table 7: Type of graffiti

Table 8: Reasons for writing graffiti

Table 9: Future graffiti

Table 10: Future participation in graffiti, by age

Table 11: Ranking of Reasons for Graffiti

Table 12: Should more effort be made to stop graffiti, by gender, age, ethnicity

and participation

Table 13: Reasons to stop doing graffiti

Table 14: Reasons to stop graffiti, by age

Table 15: Average rating of reasons to stop doing graffiti

Table 16: Average score for strategies to stop graffiti

List of Figures

Figure 1: Reasons people write graffiti, by personal involvement

Figure 2: Graffiti is more exciting because it is illegal, by (non)involvement in writing

Figure 3: Reason to stop graffiti, by form of graffiti

Figure 4: Strategies to prevent graffiti, by participation


4

Glossary Bomb/bombing‡ – To bomb or hit is to paint many surfaces in an area. Bombers often

choose throw–ups or tags over complex pieces, as they can be executed more quickly

Buff‡ – To remove painted graffiti with chemicals and other instruments, or to paint over it

with a flat colour

Crew* – a group of friends with similar interests

Getting up* – putting in a lot of writing

Graffiti* – markings on a surface

King* – a master of styles

Masterpiece – see piece

Piece/masterpiece* – a fully filled, multi-coloured (sometimes complex) large stylised

signature

Roller‡ – same as a stomper

Sketch book* – a book of sketches or drawings which writers will carry with them

Stomper (or stompie)† – using large rollers to paint block letters, usually outlined in can

Style* – a particular kind, sort or type, as with reference to form, appearance or character

Tag* – a simple, stylised self–elected name or signature written in public

Throw up* – a scarcely filled or quick bubble derived style

Toy* – a new person to the scene or a less talented writer

Wackie (or Wacky)† – Joint letter tags that are joined up, ‘all wackied out’

Wild style† – Graffiti with text so stylized as to be difficult to read, often with interlocking,

three–dimensional type

Writer* – a person who is a participator in the art form of writing

Writing* – the name for the underground movement consisting of ‘getting up and getting

seen’ with your name (or alias). The act of writing graffiti using marks, paint pens or

spray paint.

* Words of art (2009, March 2009). Tearaway, March 2009, 5. ‡ Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graffiti_terminology †Manurewa Focus group participant explanation, May 8, 2009, Auckland, New Zealand.


5

Executive summary

The central aim of the study was to:

• develop understanding of offender motivation and attitudes of young people more

generally to tagging and graffiti.

More specific questions form the central objectives of the study:

• to develop knowledge of offenders’ attitudes toward graffiti and tagging;

• to understand the extent (if any) to which tagging and graffiti offending is associated

with other criminal activity;

• to identify factors that shape ‘involvement decisions’, ‘event decisions’ and

‘desistance decisions’ (Cornish and Clarke, 2006);

• to examine the extent to which the transgressive nature of tagging and graffiti are

central to offender motivation;

• to establish the relationships between tagging, graffiti and other aspects of youth

subculture.

The research was conducted via an online survey and a series of focus groups. Findings from

the survey and focus groups are presented in relation to three broad themes: general

attitudes toward graffiti, the commissioning and writing of graffiti and tagging, and

desistance from graffiti and tagging.

Four themes of general significance emerge from the data:

• graffiti writers do not form a group clearly or wholly distinct from non-graffiti writers;

• graffiti is a meaningful cultural and social practice for writers and only indirectly

‘appreciated’ for its illegality;

• graffiti writing is associated with a desire for local celebrity;

• graffiti writers’ perspectives on desistance suggest highly bounded rationality about

prevention strategies.

General attitudes toward graffiti

One of the main themes was that there is a distinction between ‘tagging’ and graffiti. The

former is acknowledged as a “simple, stylised self-elected name or signature written in

public” while graffiti is referred to as “markings on a surface” (Tearaway, 2009). A majority of

respondents argued that the circumstances determined whether graffiti is a negative thing:

• 81.9 per cent ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that graffiti should be tolerated in some

circumstances;

• those who reported that they had written graffiti were most likely to report that it is

never a ‘bad thing’ (23.4 per cent);


6

• only a small minority (12.2 per cent) felt that graffiti was a ‘bad thing’ in all cases.

Focus group participants also expressed the overlapping status of graffiti and tagging:

To other people it is vandalism but to us it is art.

If it is graffiti then it is art, if it is tagging then it is vandalism.

The commissioning of graffiti and tagging

A slight majority of respondents reported that they had not written graffiti. The survey asked

respondents to state whether they write graffiti, have ever written graffiti or have not written

graffiti. A large minority reported that they do write graffiti or that they had done at some

point. The data indicates a substantial difference between male and female involvement in

graffiti: a slight majority of male respondents agreeing that they had written graffiti at some

time; while a clear majority of females reported that they had not written graffiti.

Age and participation in graffiti

There does not appear to be any clear direction in the relationship between age and reported

writing. More than half of those aged under-14 reported that they had, at least on occasion,

written graffiti, but the highest participation group was those aged 22-23 years.

Property selected for graffiti

The classification of property in terms of ownership status does not exert a significant

influence on ‘event decisions’. Focus group extracts illustrate that the legal status of property

was less significant than other factors:

You only do it where people can see it.(Focus group participant)

The best place is on the concrete ‘cos then they don’t remove it. (Focus group

participant)

Fences, big walls, plain white walls lures them to it. (Focus group participant)

Gender and personal participation in graffiti

Males reported that they engaged in different types of graffiti at a greater rate than females.

Graffiti art was the biggest category selected by those of both genders who participated.


7

Future graffiti participation

Those who had reported that they wrote graffiti were more likely to report that they would

participate in future graffiti activity.

Reasons for graffiti participation

All respondents, including those who write graffiti and those who do not, were asked their

opinion on why people write graffiti. Those who participated in graffiti-writing were less likely

to refer to ‘breaking the rules’ as a general motivation for those who write. Similarly,

participants were more likely to stress creativity as a general motivation.

Illegal nature of graffiti writing

A majority of respondents tended to agree that the illicit nature of graffiti made it more

exciting. However, agreement was strongest among those ‘relatively heavily’ involved in

graffiti activity. A large minority of respondents, in all three categories, ‘agreed’ that the

illegality of graffiti writing made it more exciting.

Desistance from graffiti and tagging

Youngest and oldest groups more strongly favoured greater effort to stop graffiti. Those who

had not participated were more likely to agree that more should be done than those who

had, and those who occasionally participated wanted more effort to stop graffiti than those

who might be considered more involved in writing.

Males were less likely to favour greater effort to stop graffiti than females and Māori and

European respondents were less likely to favour this than other ethnic groups.

Reasons to stop personally doing graffiti

Those who engaged in graffiti were asked a series of questions about factors that might lead

them to stop writing in general terms. The most significant reason to stop, across all groups,

was apprehension by police. The quick removal of graffiti was rated very lowly as a reason

for graffiti writers to stop. Family disapproval was less likely to be a factor. The most common

response, across most forms, was that none of these strategies would lead respondents to

desist from graffiti.


8

Age and desistance

Peer pressure had less influence on desistance decisions as respondents got older, while the

threat of being apprehended tended to become more notable as an influence among older

age cohorts. Responses showed that moving through life course stages was seen as an

influence on desistance.

Reasons for desistence in general

All respondents were asked to rate reasons why people in general might stop writing graffiti.

Each option was rated between 5 (strongly agree) and 1 (strongly disagree); the average

rating for each option being:

• providing legitimate sites (e.g. graffiti walls): 4.1

• making offenders clean-up graffiti: 3.4

• custodial sentences: 3.1

• better education on victim impact: 3.1.

• ‘naming and shaming’ offenders: 2.9

Profile of respondents

A total of 272 youth were involved in 21 focus groups around New Zealand between April and

May 2009. No demographic details of these participants were recorded. The on-line survey

was completed by 773 respondents: 372 were males (48.1 per cent) and 319 (41.3 per cent)

female, with 82 (10.6 per cent) not specifying their gender. The ethnic profile of respondents

by percentage:

% %

NZ European 42.8 Asian 4.7

Māori 18.5 European 9.1

Pacific 6.2 Other ‘Mixed’ 17.6

The age profile of respondents (per cent) was:

% % %

<14 1.6 20-21 8.0 Over 25 6.4

14-16 24.7 22-23 5.1 Over 30 8.4

17-19 37.2 24-25 4.2 Over 40 4.5


9

Conclusion

The research findings provide little evidence to suggest that graffiti writers are a distinct sub-

group among young people with identifiable perceptions of graffiti, and the most appropriate

responses to it, that differ from the wider population. The implications of this survey and

focus group research for policy responses to graffiti and tagging are many and various. Key

among these is that young people expressed a wide-range of perspectives on graffiti and

tagging, and that those who admitted some degree of participation did not always differ

greatly from those who do not participate. Young people had highly nuanced views such that

some forms of writing are valued for their artistic content and the risks overcome and skill

required in producing pieces. Only a small minority of young people suggested that vandalism

and criminal damage were primary motivations. Even those who admitted participating in

graffiti and vandalism maintained that there were areas and types of property that were not

acceptable sites for writing and that these should not be subject to the damage and

‘disrespect’ sometimes associated with such activity.


10

Introduction

A range of evidence suggests that problems relating to graffiti and tagging in New Zealand

have had a high profile in recent years. Attention has been focused on cases where owners of

property that has been tagged have responded in ways that have raised concerns about the

use of force and the extent to which private citizens are entitled to directly intervene to

protect their premises. Perceptions that graffiti and tagging are growing problems are

reinforced by steps taken by courts, police, local government and Parliament to introduce

more effective intervention strategies. In 2008 the court in Napier sentenced several teenage

taggers to terms in jail, partly, according to press reports of judges’ comments in court, in

order to deter others from contributing to a growing problem in the Hawke’s Bay region. In

the same period, it was reported that police in Wellington had adopted a high visibility

response to tagging whereby offenders were required to wear pink vests while deployed to

clean up local graffiti. Local government expenditure on cleaning up graffiti and tagging

represents a significant commitment from scarce resources, as is reviewed below. Nationally,

legal controls on the sale of spray paint were tightened by the Summary Offences (Tagging

and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Act 2008 and changes to the 1961 Crimes Act

established a maximum term of seven years imprisonment for such intentional property

damage (New Zealand Government, 1961). A range of other responses are included in the

STOP (Stop Tagging Our Place) strategy that was introduced in 2008. With the strategy and

the general context of concern about the extent and impact of graffiti and tagging, the

current study was developed and conducted in the first half of 2009.

It should be noted that this research project was not an evaluation of the existing STOP

strategy, nor of the various ways that policy makers have tried to encourage graffiti writers to

desist from their behaviour e.g. legal graffiti walls. The primary aims of this study were to

develop an understanding of what motivates graffiti artists and to examine the attitudes of a

broad range of young people towards graffiti and tagging.

Aim and objectives of the study While many initiatives have been introduced to tackle problems associated with graffiti and

tagging, it continues to be the case that little is known about the perspectives of young

people in general and participants in particular. To that end, the central aim of the study was:

• to develop understanding of offender motivation and attitudes of young people more

generally to tagging and graffiti.


11

More specific questions form the central objectives of the study:

• to develop knowledge of offenders’ attitudes toward graffiti and tagging;

• to understand the extent (if any) to which tagging and graffiti offending is associated

with other criminal activity;

• to identify factors that shape ‘involvement decisions’, ‘event decisions’ and

‘desistance decisions’ (Cornish and Clarke, 2006);

• to examine the extent to which the transgressive nature of tagging and graffiti are

central to offender motivation;

• to establish the relation between tagging, graffiti and other aspects of youth

subculture.

Methodology Researching those who are involved in criminal or deviant activities has many pitfalls, a key

issue being that of recruiting respondents. Young people as a group are also notoriously

difficult to engage in research projects, especially those who are engaged in activities such as

graffiti writing. The research project discussed here is based on a mixed methods approach

towards understanding a specific issue: to develop understanding of offender motivation and

attitudes of young people more generally to tagging and graffiti. The project takes a

pragmatic approach to mixed methods research and aims to view graffiti from more than one

viewpoint to gain better knowledge about the issues surrounding this behaviour.

Mixed methods research refers to that which uses two or more methods in a single research

project (Gilbert 2008), although social scientists disagree about what counts as mixing

methods. Academics such as Bryman (2004), and Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) use the

term in relation to projects that only combine qualitative and quantitative methods. Gilbert

(2008) and Alexander et al. (2008, cited in Gilbert 2008: 127) argue that this is a narrow

definition and that mixed methods should also refer to research that brings together two or

more qualitative or quantitative methods. Mixed methods research was used in this project to

combine both qualitative and quantitative methods; an online survey and focus groups. The

survey was designed to get a ‘broad brush’ view of graffiti and to elicit the responses of

participants towards deterrence-based strategies to stop graffiti in public places. The focus

groups were employed to examine the issues related to graffiti such as its diversity and

complexity in more detail, with several different groups of respondents making up the focus

group discussions.

The question of conducting qualitative and mixed methods research on criminological topics

has been raised by many researchers (for example see Noakes and Wincup, 2004). In the


12

context of studying graffiti and tagging there are a number of reasons in choosing a mixed

methods approach that includes qualitative methods. First, this approach allows some insight

into the ‘dark figure of crime’ defined as, ‘the figure for unrecorded crime or undetected

offenders, that is to say those not included in official statistics’ (Coleman and Moynihan,

1996; 146). Using both quantitative and qualitative methods and combining different ways of

collecting data offers the opportunity for a more complete understanding of the nature and

extent of graffiti and tagging. The use of qualitative methods such as focus groups offers the

opportunity to examine the contexts in which graffiti and tagging take place as well as the

meanings attached to these behaviours by graffiti writers. Second, the term ‘appreciative

studies’ was first used by Matza (1969) in referring to studies of deviant subcultures.

Appreciative criminology refers to ‘an approach that seeks to understand and appreciate the

social world from the point of view of the individual or category of individual, with particular

reference to crime and deviance’ (Jupp, 2001; 12). Developing an appreciation of the

meanings and motivations of graffiti writers is important in developing effective strategies to

prevent graffiti vandalism.

Overview of survey An online survey was established on the Ministry of Youth Development (MYD) website, using

the Survey Monkey web-tool. The survey comprised of 23 questions relating to general

perceptions of tagging and graffiti, the deviant and criminal status of tagging and graffiti, and

factors that might influence desistance. Demographic information (age, gender and ethnicity)

was collected. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix 1. The survey was hosted on the

MYD website in May and June 2009. Participants in the survey were self-selected and

although a relatively large number completed returns it is not possible to ascertain the extent

to which they are representative of the broader youth population of New Zealand.

The on-line survey was completed by 773 respondents: 372 were males (48.1 per cent) and

319 (41.3 per cent) female, with 82 (10.6 per cent) not specifying their gender. Table 1

shows the ethnic profile of respondents and age breakdown of those who completed the

survey.


13

Table 1: Profile of respondents (number and percentages)

<14 14-16 17-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 >25<30 >30<40 >40 Total

% n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n

NZ

European

30.0 3 34.0 54 44.0 102 40.4 21 46.4 13 62.5 15 53.8 21 43.4 23 55.2 16 42.8 268

Māori 20.0 2 22.6 36 18.5 43 15.4 8 10.7 3 0.0 0 7.7 3 30.2 16 17.2 5 18.5 116

Pacific 10.0 1 6.3 10 5.2 12 11.5 6 7.1 2 4.2 1 7.7 3 3.8 2 6.9 2 6.2 39

Asian 10.0 1 8.8 14 4.3 10 5.8 3 14.3 4 4.2 1 5.1 2 1.9 1 0.0 0 5.8 36

European 20.0 2 4.4 7 9.1 21 19.2 10 10.7 3 12.5 3 12.8 5 5.7 3 10.3 3 9.1 57

Other

ethnic

10.0 1 23.9 38 19.0 44 7.7 4 10.7 3 16.7 4 12.8 5 15.1 8 10.3 3 17.6 110

Total 100 10 100 159 100 232 100 52 100 28 100 24 100 39 100 53 100 29 100 626

In keeping with established practice respondents were able to select more than one ethnic

affiliation. Respondents who did so (17.6 per cent of all respondents) are categorised as

’other’ in this analysis.

Overview of focus groups The other method of collecting data was via a series of focus groups, conducted in various

locations around New Zealand in April and May 2009. Thirteen of these were facilitated with

the help of MYD staff. Some groups incorporated young people engaged in alternative

education, mentoring based programmes and structured activity based programmes. Further

youth were recruited through graffiti cleanup and community groups; others were members

of youth panels that inform policy development across a range of government sectors.

Participants were aged between 14 and 24 years of age; no demographic data was recorded

for these participants. A copy of the interview schedule used in the focus group discussions is

in Appendix 2 and a list of the focus groups is included in Appendix 3. These focus groups

were intended to provide qualitative data from a cross-section of New Zealand youth. Another

series of seven groups were conducted in various locations with young people engaged to

various degrees in tagging and graffiti behaviour. Some of these groups were coordinated via

graffiti cleanup groups, others through alternative education and youth projects working with

young people who might not be accessible through more mainstream contacts with education

and youth services.

An immediate problem this research project encountered was the recruitment of graffiti

‘offenders’. Marginalised young people feature prominently among ‘hard to reach groups’ that

criminological research often seeks to study (Pain and Francis, 2003). The original intention

was to secure access to those who had been arrested and convicted through agencies such

as the NZ Police and Department of Corrections. However, given the complex ethical

considerations such an approach would entail and time constraints on the project, this was


14

not possible. An additional problem with this way of recruiting offenders was how to

disentangle their graffiti and tagging from other offending behaviour. It was considered

unlikely that those who had been formally processed by the criminal justice system (CJS)

would have been convicted for graffiti and tagging alone. Graffiti and tagging for this group

may be intertwined with other offending behaviours that had no relation to graffiti writing.

Therefore a different approach to recruiting participants was adopted. Utilising the extensive

contacts of the MYD1 a variety of groups of young people were accessed for focus group

discussions. In conducting the focus groups problems became apparent in distinguishing

those who had been involved in graffiti and tagging and those who had not. In discussing

illegal behaviour with young people a direct approach focussing on their own behaviour was

not deemed appropriate as this would cause respondents to ‘shut down’ and little data would

be forthcoming.

The approach taken was to ask for the opinions of focus group respondents around a series

of issues relating to graffiti and tagging. Seven of the focus groups contained respondents

who were directly involved in graffiti and tagging.2 The other 13 groups contained

respondents who may have been involved in graffiti and tagging (some respondents from

these groups referred to their own illegal activities), and those who were not directly involved

in graffiti and tagging. Researching this issue is particularly problematic because it is

embedded in youth culture through hip hop music and style. Consequently the majority of the

respondents had detailed knowledge about graffiti and tagging and used slang terms such as

‘bomb’ and ‘wackie’. They also often referred to knowledge of peer group behaviour as well

as their own graffiti and tagging behaviour.

The research team also conducted a number of informal interviews with key informants, such

as police staff, community workers and local government officers with a particular interest in

graffiti and tagging. Many of these respondents were identified by the Ministry of Justice and

are engaged in the STOP strategy. These interviews were not recorded but have helped to

shape understanding of the issues.

The research was conducted with the approval of Victoria University Wellington’s ethics

committee (reference # 16374). All those who participated in the focus groups completed

consent forms, signed by parents or guardians for those aged under 16 years. The online

survey asked for no information that would enable respondents to be identified and

participation was taken as indication of consent.

1 The help of Sen Thong and Lorraine Gittings has been invaluable in this part of the research project. 2 The respondents from these groups were identified by police and community agencies as having been

involved in graffiti and tagging. Others were involved in graffiti writing through their attachment to the hip hop community.


15

Limitations

The survey did not draw a representative sample and so it is not possible to generalise these

findings to the whole population. There were several reasons why a representative sample

could not be selected. Online respondents might be more likely to be involved in or interested

in graffiti and this might predispose them to participate. As graffiti is an under researched

topic in New Zealand the research team did not have enough information about graffiti

writers as a population to undertake representative sampling techniques. As stated previously

researching those involved in criminal or deviant activities has many challenges not least the

recruiting of respondents. The survey respondents were a self selecting, open sample. The

sample was ‘open’ as its purpose was not to represent a particular population (given the

difficulties this would entail) but to keep the collection of data as unconstrained as possible.

This approach was considered necessary due to the difficulty of accessing respondents for

this kind of research and the uncertainty as to how successful this online approach to

gathering data would be. Therefore the survey was designed to access as large a sample as

possible in order to gain information in a short space of time.

An additional problem in using the survey was that occasionally the responses contradicted

those from the focus groups. For example, a common theme in the focus groups discussions

was that graffiti writers were motivated by a desire to ‘get their name up’, to be recognised,

to be a ‘celebrity’. In the survey only 24 out of 309 graffiti writers chose the category ‘to get

may name up and feel like a celebrity’ in answer to the question ‘what would you say was the

MAIN reason why you did it?’ However the question does ask what the main reason is for

engaging in graffiti. Therefore the responses from the survey suggest that ‘to get may name

up and feel like a celebrity’ is not the most significant reason for engaging in graffiti writing

(the survey respondents could only choose one response).

As no respondents were excluded from the survey and the sample was self selecting, some of

the respondents fell outside the category of ‘youth’. The survey did not specify when or how

recently graffiti writing was carried out so it was unclear whether graffiti writing was

contemporary behaviour or something no longer engaged in. This may account for the fact

that 61 out of 773 respondents were over 25. The older age group are also likely to be those

who have desisted from graffiti so their views are important when considering policy

interventions.


16

Literature review and overview of policy Problems of incivilities, offensiveness and disorder have a long history and are increasingly a

concern in contemporary society (Stanko, 2000). One reason for this might be that crimes of

a disorderly or ‘anti-social’ nature are argued to contribute strongly to people’s fear of crime

(Herbert, 1993; Doran and Lees, 2005). Offences that might be minor in legal and criminal

justice terms (such as littering, graffiti and public nuisance) are referred to as ‘incivilities’ and

are said to make people feel unsafe. The broken windows thesis (Wilson and Kelling, 1982)

stated that crimes such as graffiti encouraged further criminal activities and that disorder and

crime are usually linked – one broken window in a building that is left unfixed is a sign that

nobody cares and further acts of vandalism will follow. This way of thinking about crime has

been heavily criticised as it is argued that it was wrong in assuming an automatic escalation

in crime because of disorder (Bottoms, 2006). In addition, it was found that people’s

perceptions of crime in areas where incivilities occurred did not necessarily correlate with the

actual crime rate. People often perceived that crime rates were higher than they actually

were. However, the concept of signal crimes as put forward by Innes (2004), in which certain

crimes act as warnings to specific populations about risk, emphasises the importance of

disorder in discussions of crime. Research has shown that the top ‘signals’ in relation to

perceived risk in the United Kingdom (UK) are ‘disorderly events occurring in public space’

(Innes, 2004: 158).

Despite criticisms, the ideas contained within the broken windows thesis have continued to

influence crime prevention policy. Situational crime prevention (SCP) and Crime Prevention

Through Environmental Design (CPTED) programmes are based on altering the environment

or situation to make it less likely that crime would occur. Many of these kinds of programmes

are focussed on ‘incivilities’ such as graffiti and vandalism. Situational crime control

programmes are also influenced by rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke, 1986) in that

the ‘criminal’ is assumed to make a rational choice about whether to commit crime based on

assessment of risks and benefits. Logically, following this line of reasoning suggests that

harsher punishments or increased police presence (risk of being caught) should act as a

deterrent to potential offenders. However, when examining the motivations of graffiti writers

in New Zealand (and globally) a different picture is constructed in which it is clear that

deterrence based strategies will not always be the most effective in tackling the issues

surrounding graffiti.

In this context, the purpose of this literature review is to investigate young peoples’ attitudes

towards graffiti and tagging in New Zealand. Graffiti has become a topic of concern in New

Zealand in recent years (Ministry of Justice, 2006; Ministry of Justice, 2008), but even a

cursory review of these debates quickly reveals that it is important to clarify the terms


17

‘graffiti’ and ‘tagging’. Although the two are often combined, they are not the same nor

interchangeable (Halsey and Young, 2002). Indeed, the discussion below reveals a host of

other terms used for different forms of graffiti writing. A tag is described as a “simple,

stylised self-elected name or signature written in public” while graffiti is referred to as

“markings on a surface” (Tearaway, 2009). For the purpose of this report the terms ‘tagging’

and ‘graffiti’ are used synonymously, although it is recognised that writers themselves often

attach considerable significance to different forms.

The legal framework surrounding graffiti is complex in New Zealand. The Summary Offences

Act (1981) defines graffiti in the following terms:

• damages or defaces any building, structure, road, tree, property, or other thing by

writing, drawing, painting, spraying, or etching on it, or otherwise marking it;

• without lawful authority; and

• without the consent of the occupier or owner or other person in lawful control.

New Zealand Government (1981)

The Local Government Act (2002) covers various local authority bylaws to deal with tagging

and graffiti as part of a wider scope of dealing with community concerns (Ministry of Justice,

2008). Auckland’s Manukau City Council had previous legislation to deal with graffiti under

the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Act 2008. This law was repealed under the

amendment to the Summary Offences Act (1981) with the passing of the Summary Offences

(Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Act (2008). Graffiti is also incorporated in the

Crimes Act (1961) s.269(2) under intentional damage, which refers to:

• Intentional damage – intentionally damaging property, with a penalty of a prison

term of up to seven years.

The Summary Offences Act (1981) was amended in 2008 to introduce new legislation

restricting the sale of spray cans and other paraphernalia related to graffiti to those under the

age of 18. Under the new law spray cans must be stored in areas the general public do not

have direct access to and must ask sales staff for assistance to purchase said cans (New

Zealand Government, 2008).

A search of the literature reveals a scarcity of New Zealand research; the available material

also shows a focus on crime prevention rather than the graffiti writer’s viewpoint (Halsey and

Young, 2002: 166). Graffiti is an issue that costs local and state governments in New Zealand

and internationally (Ferrell, 1995; Halsey and Young, 2002; Ministry of Justice, 2006). Halsey

and Young (2002) described the financial and time intensive costs for graffiti removal in

recent Australian research. Although hundreds of graffiti crimes are processed annually, a

large number of graffitists elude capture and punishment (Halsey and Young 2002). Local


18

government in New Zealand spends considerable sums on removing it: in 2006 Auckland,

New Zealand, spent approximately $5 million on graffiti clean-up. In 2007 it is estimated that

Manukau City Council spent $1 million on its Graffiti Management Strategies (Police News,

2008). Rapid removal of graffiti can lead to the illusion that the problem has abated, as the

general public do not see evidence of offensive tags or graffiti (Craw, Leland et al., 2006).

Despite these efforts, as targeted sites are cleaned up by councils, they are often quickly re-

targeted (Craw, Leland et al., 2006).

Much of the general media, political and policy debate surrounding graffiti understand the

phenomenon almost solely in terms of damaging vandalism that has a negative impact on

crime and quality of life issues (Ministry of Justice and Local Government New Zealand, 2006;

Ministry of Justice, 2008). On the other hand, many youth see it as creative expression, a

way to show society how they feel (Ferrell, 1995; White, 2001). There is a tension between

those organisations attempting to remove and prevent graffiti, and youth wanting to break

free of social constraint (White, 2001). Graffiti writers and authorities are juxtaposed (Ferrell,

1995; White, 2001). Graffitists see a blank canvas to be brightened up with colour and

design; the need to beautify a plain wall (Ferrell, 1995; White, 2001).

In contrast, local government sees the damage caused by graffiti and the high cost of

cleaning it up (Ferrell, 1995; Halsey and Young, 2002; Halsey and Young, 2006). Several

authors see the need to examine the reasons why young people involve themselves in this

illicit activity (White, 2001; Halsey and Young, 2002; Craw, Leland et al., 2006; Halsey and

Young, 2006). Halsey and Young (2006) interviewed graffiti writers to ascertain their

motivations for immersion in the culture. Key among those is that writers gain pleasure and

enjoyment from writing. Other reasons for graffiti writing included a sense of belonging to

the culture, fame and the affective response to the writing process; taking hold of the can,

seeing their work finished (Halsey and Young 2006). These themes form an important part of

this study and are reviewed in more detail below.

Relevant to this discussion is graffiti’s centrality to cultural criminology through its association

with the expression of youth culture (Goldson, 2007). Cultural criminology emerged in the

1990’s from sociological and critical criminological thinking emphasising youth identity,

activity and location (Goldson, 2007). While not all graffiti writers are young, it is seen as a

youth ‘problem’ as a number of teenagers engage in graffiti writing (Halsey and Young,

2002). Halsey and Young (2006) question the perception that graffiti writers are bored and

cause damage to property due to a lack of respect for it. In contrast, graffiti writers feel a

sense of belonging to a community, a comradeship with other young people immersed in

graffiti culture. The feeling of belonging is supported by Ferrell’s (1995) work in Colorado in

the US, which noted social cohesion between disaffected youth who connect with each other

through the activity of writing. Seeing another youth’s tag and recognising it supports the


19

cohesion to the group (Ferrell, 1995; Halsey and Young, 2006). Halsey and Young (2006)

criticise academics for presuming that graffiti writers are oppressed or disenfranchised, and

for ignoring the familial support and recognition felt within their community. Furthermore,

Halsey and Young (2006) argue against focusing on graffiti writing as meaningless and

excessive behaviour, as this contradicts the reality of preparation and practice that goes into

graffitists’ work. Cultural criminology is a theoretical perspective that focuses on the intense

meanings invested in activities such as graffiti and the centrality of such activities to

participants’ lifestyles. Crime and deviance are often analysed by cultural criminologists as

offering thrills, pleasure and the ‘seductions of crime’ (Katz, 1988 cited in Carrabine, Iganski,

Lee and Plummer, 2004; 84). Cultural criminology also sought to critique traditional

motivational accounts of crime which often saw crime as being in some way pathological.

Although cultural criminology is critical of rational choice theories of crime, arguing that some

kinds of crime such as graffiti are motivated by excitement and thrill seeking, this does not

mean that there are not important meanings or motivations behind activities such as graffiti.

Another motivation for graffiti writers comes from their alternative view of the urban

landscape (Halsey and Young, 2006). Graffitists see surfaces as marked by weather and rust,

damaged by atmospheric conditions and so on. As such, no area is pristine and consequently

can be altered by anyone. Likewise graffitists look at blank walls as an opportunity to liven up

the environment. All structures and surfaces are a ready canvas to explore; to decorate a

negative space and bring it to life (Halsey and Young, 2006). Ferrell (1993) describes the

alternative way young writers communicate via their art form; for some it is the only way

they have to express themselves publicly. Writing is also a way of connecting to the city, with

pride taken in the recognition gained in their alternative community (Halsey and Young,

2006). Additionally, White (2001) explains that there are as many different types of graffiti

writer as there are forms of graffiti; from political messages to art pieces. In order to address

graffiti vandalism, policy makers must understand the graffiti writers’ perspective on their

activities (Halsey and Young, 2006).

It is also important to note that graffiti and tagging, although not exclusively carried out by

young people (those aged between 14 and 25), are often linked to ‘youth’, and it is the case

that many of those involved in graffiti and tagging can be classed as young people. Graffiti

and tagging therefore need to be considered in the wider context of youth crime. There is

often the perception that youth crime is out of control, although according to the Ministry of

Youth Justice in 2000, young offenders cannot be seen as a category of ‘criminals’ that is

homogeneous. For example, of all the young men who commit an offence, as a quarter of all

young men in New Zealand do, the vast majority will settle down to become law abiding

citizens in their twenties: only 15-20 per cent of the ‘ever offended’ category go on to commit

more offences later in life. This follows international patterns with countries like Australia, UK

and United States (USA) reporting similar patterns in youth offending. The vast majority (75


20

per cent) of young people in New Zealand never offend. Of the 25 per cent of young men

who do, 80 per cent offend only once and the remaining 20 per cent tend to commit a large

number of crimes over a period of years (Moffit 1993). These statistics highlight two

categories that are commonly used to refer to young offenders; persisters and desisters

(Moffit, 1996). Desisters commit at least one crime but tend to start later in adolescence,

after the age of 13. They then stop offending by ages 24-28. Desisters show only two risk

factors – substance use and mixing with anti-social peers.3 Persisters, in contrast, start

offending early, before the age of 14 and as early as age 10, offend at a high rate, and

persist until well into adulthood. Additionally they exhibit a wider range of risk factors than

desisters. Moffit (1996) argued that ‘desisters’ could also be termed ‘adolescent limited’

offenders who start and end their criminal careers relatively abruptly. They may also behave

antisocially in some environments but not in all: for example, with friends but not in school.

For this reason there may be disagreement between parents, teachers and the young people

themselves about the extent of their criminal behaviour. For most youth offenders, growing

up is the single most important factor that affects their move towards desistance. However,

in terms of graffiti, the wide age range of respondents (from ‘under 14’ years to ‘over 40’

years) suggests that this ‘offence’ for some graffiti writers is not adolescent limited. In

addition, the commitment of many graffiti writers to this form of creative expression (as

noted by Ferrell, 1993) suggests that they will not desist as they get older.

3 There are many risk factors associated with youth offending; inadequate parenting, child

abuse/maltreatment, family disruption, poor parental supervision, parent and sibling criminality, teenage parents, unstable living conditions, effects of economic disadvantage (Arthur, 2006; 9).


21

Policy developments

Graffiti vandalism has come to the fore in recent years in New Zealand as a result of several

high profile events (Dominion Post, 2007; City Independent, 2009). Auckland businessman

Bruce Emery’s stabbing to death of 15 year old tagger Pihema Cameron polarised attention

on the issue of graffiti (Koubaridis, Vass et al., 2008). Other media attention has highlighted

the work of Judge Tony Adeane in jailing a series of recidivist taggers in Napier in recent

years (Dominion Post, 2007). The Ministry of Justice implemented Stop Tagging Our Place

(STOP) strategy in 2007 to help local government, non-Government agencies (NGOs) and

regional authorities deal with graffiti and tagging.

STOP (Ministry of Justice, 2008b) aims to prevent, manage and enforce action to reduce

graffiti via community engagement and ownership of the problem. The strategy guides local

government to facilitate reduction measures and actively enforce new and existing legal

frameworks to address graffiti. STOP (Ministry of Justice, 2008b) supports the use of CPTED

principles. CPTED draws on Jeffery’s (1971) work on the prevention of criminal activity via

means of urban design, for example open plan housing developments with well lit walkways

and paths, plus the removal of isolated or obscured areas where crime could occur (Jeffery,

1971; Wortley and Mazerolle, 2008). In order to assist with implementing the

recommendations in STOP, a funding grant programme was established (Ministry of Justice,

2008). The Graffiti vandalism prevention grant fund application guidelines 2008/09 has a one-

off grant of $5,000 to $30,000 with the same dollar value being available for longer term

projects running for up to two years (Ministry of Justice, 2008a).

A strong emphasis in policy efforts towards the long term reduction in graffiti appears to be

community engagement and civic pride (Ministry of Justice and Local Government New

Zealand, 2006). This has been seen in Hastings District Council (HDC) and Keep Hastings

Beautiful Trust’s (KHBT) work with residents in the Hastings suburb of Camberley (J. Barnes,

personal communication, May 11, 2009). By involving residents in a community cleanup, they

begin to take ownership of the problem and thus help to prevent graffiti reoccurring.

Camberley’s shops had been a regular target of taggers but with the help of a local artist the

residents cleaned up the area and painted a mural. Several local schools have also seen a

clean-up and mural programme being effective in reducing graffiti.

Other initiatives in Hastings include the Chesterhope bridge’s ‘paint out’ day, where police

and KHBT supervised a group of serious graffiti and tagging offenders to tidy up the area.

Then each person was allowed to paint one support wall of the bridge. Since that event in

September 2008 there has only been one minor incident of tagging in what was previously a

regular target for graffiti (J. Barnes, personal communication, May 11, 2009).


22

Another response to the problem of graffiti has been establishing a 24 hour time frame for

removal of painting (Ministry of Justice, 2008b; Timaru District Council, 2009). Various New

Zealand local government strategies have implemented rapid removal plans for graffiti (Craw,

Leland et al., 2006; Hastings District Council, 2008). One recent example is HDC’s

development of a graffiti strategy in 2008, based on CPTED principles. In partnership with

Keep Hastings Beautiful Trust (KHBT), HDC established steps to reduce and prevent graffiti

vandalism (Hastings District Council, 2008). A website with information and a free phone

number were established in 2008 so that members of the public could report graffiti. HDC

engaged the Department of Correction’s Community Work scheme to clean up council

property and businesses, often using young offenders prosecuted for tagging. The council

also has a full time clean up team to respond to reported incidents. Since the strategy’s 2008

introduction, graffiti reports have reduced from 200-300 cases per month to approximately

100 cases (J. Barnes, personal communication, May 11, 2009). Similarly, Timaru District

Council (TDC) has had success with graffiti eradication through funding from Ministry of

Justice (J. Cullimore, personal communication, May 5, 2009). TDC work with police and

Department of Corrections to record and clean up graffiti. Anecdotal evidence shows that this

is having a visible impact on graffiti levels in parks and reserves in the area.

Recent New Zealand research has linked the use of mural walls to a reduction in graffiti

(Craw, Leland et al., 2006). The study by Craw et al (2006) found only eight graffiti attacks in

20 weeks following the painting of a mural on a previously well targeted concrete city wall.

This is in contrast with 14 attacks on the same wall in the two week pre-trial period. Reasons

for the reduction included a high profile location in the inner city, the mural’s colour made

graffiti difficult to read and taggers were thought to have respect for the mural artist (Craw,

Leland et al., 2006). This supports HDC’s mural and paint out community projects where

residents have cleaned up a school or shopping centre then painted a mural (J. Barnes,

personal communication, May 11, 2009). As a result of programmes, seen in several Hastings

primary schools and Camberley shops, the mural areas have seen a reduction in the amount

of graffiti (ibid).

Education is a further reduction strategy which is seen to be important in discouraging young

people from graffiti, especially teenagers, who are seen as the more prolific age group

involved in the activity (Halsey and Young, 2002; Constable T. Gommans, personal

communication, May 26, 2009). Wellington community police officer, Constable Gommans,

has taken an education programme into schools in Eastern Wellington for the past few years.

Part of the programme includes explaining that those caught tagging must clean up wearing

a fluorescent pink vest with ‘TAGGER’ printed on the reverse. Prior to the pink vest initiative,

Gommans had worked hard for several years and to reduce the amount of graffiti by 50 to 60

per cent (T. Gommans, personal communication, May 26 2009). In 2007, Wellington City

Council financially supported an education programme for Year 8 students. As a result of the


23

school talks with the vest, graffiti in Eastern Wellington dropped away to negligible figures (T.

Gommans, personal communication, May 26 2009). However, an unintended consequence of

this kind of crime prevention initiative is that it moves the problem around to other suburbs4.

The western and northern suburbs of Wellington have apparently reported an increase in

graffiti and tagging since the introduction of the ‘pink vest’ initiative in eastern parts of the

city (City Life Independent Herald, March 2009). In addition as Gommans notes, crime

prevention initiatives might not lead to sustained and continuing reductions in offending

behaviour.

For over six months I had hardly anything. It was great because I have other things I

have to do but slowly it started to come back. A lot of them now know about the pink

vest and they put down the spray can when they know the consequences.

(Constable T. Gommans, May 26, 2009)

A second education programme, run by Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust (MBCT),

shows Year 5 to 8 students the impact on their community of graffiti (B. Carney, personal

communication, June 2, 2009). Run in conjunction with community police officers, students

discuss the issues around the problem then help to ‘paint out’ a targeted wall or space in

local parks, reserves or walkways. MBCT’s Barbara Carney believes that undertaking the

clean-up gives students pride in the work. MBCT also gives presentations on the topic to high

school students. A further MBCT initiative, ENVIRO ARTS, works with at-risk youth in a

programme teaching new skills and attempting to build their self esteem. Carney explained

that this gives them employment skills for a trade, as the practical experience of building park

benches, retaining walls and similar can facilitate entry into further training or labouring work

(B. Carney, personal communication, May 8, 2009).

It is clear that in New Zealand currently the issue of graffiti and tagging is a source of

concern for communities and politicians alike. It is also clear that there are a number of

diverse initiatives that are focussing on dealing with the issues that graffiti raises. Those that

have been successful are those that are most closely aligned to the attitudes of the young

people and graffiti writers studied in this research project. For example, those that clear up

‘tagging’ and replace them with murals or graffiti art are successful because the ‘rules’

relating to graffiti strongly prohibit tagging on respected ‘pieces’.

4 This is also apparent as a consequence of alcohol bans which have simply moved the problem of

street drinkers from Glover Park to Cuba Street to Aro Valley, and is a form of displacement often associated with this kind of crime prevention initiative.


24

Findings The survey results and data from the focus groups is presented below in relation to three

broad themes: general attitudes toward graffiti, the commissioning of graffiti and tagging,

and desistance from graffiti and tagging.

General attitudes toward graffiti The on-line questionnaire asked some introductory questions about the status and nature of

graffiti. Table 2 shows the results of these questions and indicates a broad distribution of

views in relation to the status of graffiti as vandalism that should not be tolerated, with

almost equal proportions of respondents in each category of responses. The survey showed a

high-level of agreement that graffiti should be tolerated in some circumstances: 39.0 per cent

‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the statement in the question. Both responses suggest that

no distinct public perspective was articulated about the nature of graffiti in general terms.

Table 2: Attitudes toward graffiti and tagging (number and percentages)

Strongly agree

Agree Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

Total

% n % n % n % n % n % n Graffiti is

vandalism and should never be tolerated

17.3 124 21.7 155 21.8 156 21.7 155 17.5 125 100 715

Graffiti is an urban art-form that should be valued in some circumstances

41.8 312 40.1 299 9.4 70 5.2 39 3.5 26 100 746

That respondent attitudes toward graffiti and tagging were nuanced is further evident from

the results presented in Table 3, which shows that only a small minority (12.2 per cent) felt

that graffiti was a ‘bad thing’ in all cases. By far the majority of respondents argued that the

circumstances determined whether graffiti is a negative thing. Male respondents were more

likely than female to respond that graffiti was never a bad thing and slightly more likely to

say it was always a bad thing, and considerable differences were found between those less

than 30 and older respondents: while 11.4 per cent of 22-23 year olds, for example,

answered that graffiti is always a bad thing, this proportion was much higher among those

who were 30+ (19.0 per cent) and the 40+ age cohort (38.7 per cent). Those who reported

that they had written graffiti were most likely to report that it is never a ‘bad thing’ (23.4 per

cent).


25

The diverse nature of graffiti writing was highlighted in comments made by the online survey

participants:

There is a line that defines graffiti and tagging. Graffiti art is different to Tagging.

That needs to be established.

There are two types of graffiti. One vandalism and two, the creative artistic side.

Understnd this.

I strongly disagree with tagging, I’m sure you understand this but taggers are also a

problem for Graffiti artists. They Tag our artistic work also making it go from

respectable art to a hideous mess.5

These kinds of distinctions and definitions influenced the responses presented in Table 3

above. As noted by graffiti researchers Ferrell (1993) and Halsey and Young (2002), defining

‘graffiti’ can be problematic, which is supported in the opinions of the respondents in this

study. Focus group participants also expressed the overlapping status of graffiti and tagging

as art and as vandalism:

5 Throughout the report quotes from respondents are unchanged and spelling/grammar has not been

corrected.

Table 3: Do you think that graffiti is a bad thing? ((number and percentages)), by gender, age, ethnicity and participation

Yes, always Sometimes No, never % n % n % n All 12.2 94 76.7 593 11.1 86

Males 13.2 49 72.0 268 14.8 55 Females 11.9 38 80.9 258 7.2 23

Under 14 9.1 1 81.8 9 9.1 1 14-16 12.3 21 71.3 122 16.4 28 17-19 11.3 29 79.0 203 9.7 25 20-21 7.3 4 85.5 47 7.3 4 22-23 11.4 4 74.3 26 14.3 5 24-25 3.4 1 86.2 25 10.3 3 25+ 9.1 4 79.5 35 11.4 5 30+ 19.0 11 70.7 41 10.3 6 40+ 38.7 12 58.1 18 3.2 1

NZ European 17.9 48 77.2 207 4.9 13 Māori 9.5 11 69.0 80 21.6 25 Pacific peoples 15.4 6 71.8 28 12.8 5 Asian 16.7 6 80.6 29 2.8 1 European 3.5 2 77.2 44 19.3 11 Other ethnicity 9.1 10 77.3 85 13.6 15

Have not written graffiti

17.5 78 78.0 347 4.5 20

Have sometimes written

13.4 9 79.1 53 7.5 5

Have written 2.7 7 73.9 193 23.4 61


26

Art. It is just expressing yourself.

If you are professional it is art.

To other people it is vandalism but to us it is art.

Vandalism is when it is on someone’s property.

If it is graffiti then it is art, if it is tagging then it is vandalism.

Participants were asked to respond to a series of statements relating to potentially

problematic aspects of graffiti and a similar list of positive attributes. Table 4 ranks these

items according to the percentage of respondents who ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the

list of problems and benefits. These results reinforce the complex and contradictory

perceptions of graffiti and of the impact that it has on individuals and society. While a clear

majority agreed to some extent that graffiti is an art form there was also a strong agreement

that graffiti damages property and some agreement that it impacts on perceptions of

neighbourhoods.

Table 4: Positive and negative attributes of graffiti (number and percentages) Positive attributes

Strongly agree/ Agree

Negative attributes

Strongly agree/ Agree

% n % n Graffiti is a form of art 84.7 648 Graffiti damages

people’s property 80.9 621

Graffiti is a way for people to express themselves

84.0 639 Graffiti affects how people feel about the area they live

62.1 465

Graffiti requires creative skills

75.2 569 Graffiti is illegal 51.5 378

Graffiti is a way for people to gain status and respect

52.0 390 Graffiti looks messy 45.5 345

Graffiti is associated with other dangerous activities

40.3 303

Graffiti makes places feel unsafe

38.3 289

Contributions to the focus group discussions tended to reinforce these findings. In particular,

distinctions were frequently drawn between graffiti that is legitimate and that which is

categorised as vandalism. One focus group participant reflected the ambiguity of

distinguishing graffiti art from vandalism, noting that graffiti is “vandalism. Well, I reckon it’s

art, but in the law it is vandalism”. When asked whether graffiti is art or vandalism typical

responses included:

Some of it’s art; some of it’s vandalism. (Focus group participant)


27

If you are doing a bombing that is art, but if you just draw lines, that is vandalism.”

(Focus group participant).

The distinction between art and vandalism was sometimes cast in narrow legal terms (“if you

are allowed to do it [it is art]”) but the difference between the two designations was more

commonly thought through in more general terms that related to the content and style of

what was written. Some reflected on the impact that graffiti has on audiences, and suggested

that this shaped whether it should be considered as art or vandalism. Participants were asked

what makes some forms of graffiti art, and common reflections included:

When you do a piece [as opposed to less skilful forms] (Focus group participant)

When it becomes legal. (Focus group participant)

If your letters are standing up, people are looking at it like it is art. (Focus group

participant)

When it looks good. (Focus group participant)

If it is an expression of who you are that is art. But it is a message, something

written on a wall just to say I wrote something on a wall, that is vandalism.

(Focus group participant)

Some people have a real passion for it, to express their feelings and also for

the story. (Focus group participant)

It is an outlet of your emotions so depending on how you feel at the time.

(Focus group)

I reckon it is just mindless. There’s a good spot so let’s just hit it. (Focus

group)

Well, yeah but they do it for turf as well. Try to think that they are out there

but it is just writing on the wall. (Focus group)

“Graffiti is an element of hip hop so it is not anything negative” (Focus group

participant).

Much media and political comment regards graffiti and tagging as gateway offending that

becomes associated with other illegal and problematic behaviour. Again focus group

participants provided mixed perspectives on the extent to which tagging and graffiti is linked

to problematic illegal behaviour. While some respondents noted that it is associated with

other deviant youth activity, others suggested that more dedicated writers avoided alcohol


28

and drugs in order to focus on graffiti, or even that writing is an alternative to these

activities:

Alcohol and drugs sort of put you in that…mood. (Focus group participant)

No, I know heaps of people who do it just for fun. (Focus group participant)

Instead of taking drugs or getting drunk they tag. (Focus group participant).

Some survey respondents also highlighted that ‘to damage something’ or ‘to destroy

something’ was an unpopular reason for doing graffiti and were highly critical of the

researchers for including it as a category. More on the relation between illegality and graffiti

follows further in the discussion section of this report.

The commissioning of graffiti and tagging A slight majority (57.6 per cent) of respondents reported that they had not written graffiti.

The survey asked respondents to state either simply ‘yes’ that they do write graffiti or that

they ‘sometimes’ did: 33.8 per cent fell into the former category and 8.7 per cent the latter.

In some of the discussion that follows distinction is drawn between ‘committed’, ‘occasional’

and ‘non’ graffiti writers, and this is based on this self-categorisation. Table 5 shows how

responses to this question varied by age, gender and ethnicity.

Table 5: Have you ever written graffiti? (number and percentages) Yes Sometimes No % n % n % n All 33.8 232 8.7 52 57.6 407

Males 47.6 177 7.8 29 44.6 166 Females 17.2 55 7.2 23 75.5 241

Under 14 36.4 4 18.2 2 45.5 5 14-16 34.5 59 6.4 11 59.1 101 17-19 35.4 91 7.4 19 57.2 147 20-21 34.5 19 10.9 6 54.5 30 22-23 45.7 16 8.6 3 45.7 16 24-25 37.9 11 6.9 2 55.2 16 25+ 43.2 19 11.4 5 45.5 20 30+ 20.7 12 5.2 3 74.1 43 40+ 3.2 1 3.2 1 93.5 29 NZ European 22.0 59 4.5 12 73.5 197 Māori 50.9 59 11.2 13 37.9 44 Pacific peoples 41.0 16 12.8 5 46.2 18 Asian 8.3 3 5.6 2 86.1 31 European 56.1 32 12.3 7 31.6 18 Other ethnicity 32.7 36 9.1 10 58.2 64 Clearly the data indicates a substantial difference between male and female involvement in

graffiti: with 55.4 per cent of male respondents agreeing that they had written graffiti, at


29

least occasionally. In contrast, 75.5 per cent of females reported that they had not written

graffiti. Levels of self-reported involvement in writing graffiti also changed with the age of

respondents; although there does not appear to be any clear pattern in the relationship

between age and reported writing. More than half of those aged under-14 reported that they

had, at least on occasion, written graffiti. The group with the highest participation was those

aged 22-23 years (45.7 per cent reported that ‘yes’ they wrote graffiti and 8.6 per cent

admitted that they ‘sometimes’ participated). The various age groups under 30 years all

reported that they participated at a rate between 34.5 and 45.7 per cent. It was only in

relation to the two oldest cohorts that reported participation became notably lower. It is

important to note that the data does not relate to the age at which respondents first wrote

graffiti: respondents were specifically asked whether they had ever participated so the lower

participation rate among older respondents probably does not reflect that they have desisted

from writing graffiti; nor does it necessarily reveal anything about the ‘peak age’ of offending.

Those who reported that they had written graffiti were asked about the property that had

been targeted. Table 6 shows that a broad range of properties were selected, and that ‘other’

was also chosen by many respondents (more than one category could be chosen). This

suggests that the classification of property in terms of ownership status and so on does not

exert a strong influence on ‘event decisions’: focus group discussion suggested that the

preference for public space might be related to the desire that graffiti be seen as widely as

possible.

Table 6: Property selected for graffiti (number and percentages)

% n

Public space (e.g. alleyway, bus shelter, power box) 68.8 212

Other 57.1 176

Public building (e.g. school, hospital) 42.2 130

Private residence (e.g. wall, fence or garage) 40.6 125 Waste-ground 36.0 111

Private business (e.g. shop) 35.7 110

Focus group discussions reinforced these findings; a very wide range of locations were

identified as likely venues for graffiti and tagging. Decisions about location were related to

accessibility and visibility as well as the suitability of the surface offered. Typical comments

included:

You only do it where people can see it (Focus group participant)

The best place is on the concrete ‘cos then they don’t remove it (Focus group

participant)


30

Fences, big walls, plain white walls lures them to it (Focus group participant)

The train station; that is just hit on top of hit on top of hit (Focus group participant)

In the city … alleyways, fences, shops. On my walls (laughter) (Focus group

participant)

Cars, buses, government property (Focus group participant).

Table 7 shows that respondents’ participation in different forms of graffiti varied by gender,

age, ethnicity and whether they were involved in graffiti of any form. Although there was

variation in the extent of participation, respondents who engaged in some form of graffiti

were most likely to identify their activity as ‘graffiti art’. Males reported that they engaged in

different types of graffiti at a greater rate than females, although graffiti art was the biggest

category selected by those who participated of both genders. Of those who have written

graffiti 34.9 per cent reported that they had done ‘graffiti art’; those who had ‘sometimes’

participated also selected this category above the others, as 33.3 per cent chose it.

Exceptions to this trend were the youngest age cohort (under 14 years) who were more likely

to have tagged (50.0 per cent) or done stylised writing (25.1 per cent) (although the very

small numbers in these groups means considerable caution is required), Māori (who were

more likely to have tagged, at 41.5 per cent, than have done graffiti art) and Pacific peoples

(who were more likely to have done stylised writing). These latter findings reflect the

apparent differentials in involvement in tagging and graffiti across ethnic groups that were

indicated in Table 5.

Table 7: Type of graffiti (number and percentages)

Stylised writing

Vandalism Graffiti art Tagging Political expression

None of these

N % N % N % N % N % N % All 25 14.9 8 4.8 73 43.5 49 29.2 13 7.7 20 11.9 Males 19 16.1 6 5.1 46 39.0 37 31.4 10 8.5 14 11.9 Females 6 12.0 2 4.0 27 54.0 12 24.0 3 6.0 6 12.0

Under 14 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 1 25.0

14-16 5 8.9 2 3.6 27 48.2 21 37.5 1 1.8 4 7.1

17-19 10 16.1 3 4.8 25 40.3 20 32.3 4 6.5 9 14.5 20-21 2 22.2 0 0.0 4 44.4 2 22.2 1 11.1 0 0.0 22-23 1 9.1 2 18.2 5 45.5 1 9.1 2 18.2 1 9.1 24-25 1 14.3 0 0.0 2 28.6 1 14.3 2 28.6 1 14.3

25+ 4 30.8 0 0.0 5 38.5 1 7.7 1 7.7 2 15.4 30+ 1 9.1 1 9.1 4 36.4 1 9.1 2 18.2 2 18.2 40+ 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0


31

NZ European 8 15.1 2 3.8 19 35.8 9 17.0 6 11.3 9 17.0

Maori 6 9.2 2 3.1 25 38.5 27 41.5 2 3.1 3 4.6 Pacific

peoples 5 35.7 1 7.1 4 28.6 2 14.3 0 0.0 2 14.3

Asian 1 33.3 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3 European 2 40.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 1 20.0

Other ethnicity

2 5.7 2 5.7 18 51.4 8 22.9 3 8.6 2 5.7

Have written 24 14.5 7 4.2 65 39.4 42 25.5 13 7.9 14 8.5

Have sometimes written

6 15.4 1 2.6 13 33.3 8 20.5 1 2.6 10 25.6

Focus group discussion provided further elaboration on the range of different types and

writing that young people identify. Much of the discussion and evaluation of the legitimacy of

writing was related to the type and style. Fine gradations existed between, for example,

scribbles, tags and bombs, which were forms of relatively unsophisticated writing that require

no particular skill and were often associated in group discussions with vandalism. Indeed

pieces of writing that were more sophisticated and valued by young people were, they noted,

sometimes subject to degradation by having tags written over them: in that way graffiti itself

was sometimes vandalised. One focus group participant expressed the distinctions between

different forms in the following terms:

There is a difference between tagging and bombing. We have that in south Taranaki.

A lot of areas where the community youth get together and done a cool bomb on the

wall. And yet when it is done like that and the youth are proud of something they

have done, they don’t tag it, like we don’t see tagging as much. We get the youth

involved in making bombing. It is still a problem but it is not as bad as it used to be.


As Table 8 indicates, ‘creative expression’ was the most significant reason why respondents

wrote graffiti. The second biggest category was ‘none of these’. Only very small proportions

reported that they were motivated by a ‘sense of danger’ or the desire to ‘damage

something’. Gender differences were marginal in response to this question: females were

more likely than males to report that they participated in graffiti as ‘part of a group or

32

Table 8: reasons for writing graffiti (number and percentages)

Sense of danger

Creative expression To protest

As part of a group culture

To damage something

To get my name up

For a sense of accomplishment Excitement

Because it breaks the

rules None of these % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n

All 1.6 5 47.2 146 7.1 22 7.4 23 1.9 6 7.8 24 2.9 9 3.9 12 5.5 17 14.6 45

Males 1.9 4 46.1 94 7.3 15 5.3 11 1.5 3 9.7 19 3.9 8 3.9 8 4.9 10 15.5 32

Females 0.0 0 51.3 40 7.7 6 10.3 8 2.6 2 3.8 3 0.0 0 5.1 4 5.1 4 14.1 11Under 14 0.0 0 50.0 3 0.0 0 16.7 1 16.7 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 16.7 1

14-16 0.0 0 37.1 26 5.7 4 5.7 4 1.4 1 15.7 11 2.9 2 5.7 4 8.6 6 17.1 12

17-19 2.7 3 51.8 57 7.3 8 4.5 5 1.8 2 5.5 6 2.7 3 3.6 4 3.6 4 16.4 18

20-21 4.0 1 60.0 15 4.0 1 8.0 22 0.0 0 4.0 1 4.0 1 .0 0 8.0 2 8.0 2

22-23 0.0 0 47.4 9 5.3 1 15.8 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 5.3 1 .0 0 5.3 1 21.1 4

24-25 0.0 0 61.5 8 0.0 0 7.7 1 0.0 0 15.4 2 7.7 1 .0 0 .0 0 7.7 1

25+ 0.0 0 41.7 10 12.5 3 8.3 2 0.0 0 12.5 3 0.0 0 8.3 2 4.2 3 12.5 3

30+ 0.0 0 46.7 7 20.0 3 6.7 1 6.7 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 13.3 2 .0 0 6.7 1

40+ 0.0 0 0.0 0 50.0 1 .0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 50.0 1

NZ European 0.0 0 49.3 35 14.1 10 1.4 1 1.4 1 5.6 4 1.4 1 5.6 4 4.2 3 16.9 12

Māori 0.0 0 38.9 28 5.6 4 11.1 8 2.8 2 9.7 7 0.0 0 4.2 3 8.3 6 19.4 14

Pacific peoples

4.8

1

47.6

10

4.8 1

19.0

4

0.0 0

9.5

2

4.8 1

4.8 1

4.8 1 0.0 0

Asian 0.0 0 60.0 3 20.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 20.0 1

European 2.6 1 53.8 21 2.6 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.6 1 10.3 4 5.1 2 5.1 2 17.9 7

Other ethnicity

4.3

2

52.2

24

4.3 2

13.0

2

4.3

2

4.3

2

2.2

1

4.3 2

2.2 1 8.7 4

33

culture’, and males more likely to report that they wanted ‘to get their name up’. Table 8

shows that the youngest cohort were more likely than others to report that they were

motivated by group culture and a desire to damage something and older cohorts, who

answered in small numbers, were more likely than others to suggest that their participation

was related to protest of some kind. Very few respondents reported that they were attracted

by a sense of danger, excitement, or by a desire for celebrity (‘to get my name up’), although

these themes did emerge from focus group discussion with graffiti-writers. Similarly,

comments included in survey responses sometimes reflected the range of motivations for

writing graffiti. The comment below illustrates something of this, as well as the distinctions

drawn between different types of writing:

There are two types of graffiti artist, the bad type and the good type. The good type

just want to express there art, the thrill of getting ur piece up for a couple of people

to admir [sic] before it is removed it addictive. But there are the bad ones that ruin it

for the good one. They tag because of the group of people the hang out with and the

competition they have with each other. The art they do doesn’t express any meaning.

(Online survey respondent)

It was clear that many respondents had complex reasons for engaging in graffiti which has

implications for deterrence based strategies such as fines and prison sentences. Online

survey respondents felt that graffiti was part of their lifestyle and it was incredibly important

to them to be able to express themselves.

I do it because I like it, why I like it is complicated but mostly has to do with being

able to take control of my environment. (Online survey respondent)

Stopping me from doing it? That would be impossible. Graffiti is already part of my

lifestyle and doing it is like therapy for me. (Online survey respondent)

An older respondent who used to graffiti but had desisted stated that:

Young people will stop tagging when they feel they matter and have purpose and

hope. Tagging is not the issue, the society and families that they come from are.


As noted by Ferrell (1995) and White (2001) graffiti writers often see parts of the city as

spaces that need brightening up and this view of graffiti writing was endorsed by some of the

survey and focus group respondents:

I don’t like tagging but love murals and big pieces of aerosol art in public spaces,

legal or not! It certainly brightens the dull and lifeless cement and is more stimulating

to look at than advertisements as big as 10 story buildings! ….And is your city pretty

anyway? (Online survey respondent)


34

Without graffiti there would be no glittering bright spots in our decaying trash riddin

inner cities. The colours can inspire a little happiness to the darkest of places.(Online

survey respondent)

Cos they think the city is ugly. They want to make it beautiful by writing their

name all over it. Colourful. (Focus group participant)

Creative expression, expressing sentiments, and sharing opinions were reasons highlighted by

the online survey respondents for doing graffiti writing..

I find it an easy way to express how I am feeling about current economic time and

the current government. (Online survey respondent)

Why stop expressing myself? I do it to share an opinion or art, not to destroy.


Comments like those above also clearly highlight the divisions between different types of

graffiti and those who engage in these kinds of activities. As with many criminological issues,

graffiti writers are a diverse population and there is no simple ‘one size fits all’ solution to the

perceived problems surrounding graffiti.

While Māori and Pacific respondents were also more likely to report ‘creative expression’ as

the main reason for their participation in graffiti, they were more likely than other ethnic

groups to report that their involvement was attributable to being ‘part of a group culture’ and

the desire to ‘get my name up’.

Respondents also referred to the informal rules surrounding the location of graffiti writing and

noted that some venues were strictly prohibited for ‘genuine’ graffiti writers. Those who

broke these informal rules were seen as engaging in vandalism and highly disapproved of.

One focus group participant summarised the informal criteria surrounding the location of

graffiti thus:

There are rules, you know, even the graffiti guys have rules – so when someone

breaks them it’s the pits. You know, the OG writers don’t tag churches or private

property, schools. But people break those rules, most of the time it’s just hooligans.

Those who were more engaged in graffiti were more likely to report that they would

participate in future graffiti activity. Table 9 shows that more than two-thirds of that group

would participate in future, compared to 26.9 per cent of those who reported that they had

‘sometimes’ written graffiti. That past performance might be a guide to future activity is

further suggested by the finding that 44.8 per cent of those who had sometimes participated

in graffiti answered that they might write again in future.


35

Table 9: Future graffiti (number and percentages)

Would you graffiti again? Have you written graffiti?

Yes Sometimes

% n % n

Yes 67.8 177 26.9 18

No 12.3 32 16.4 11

Maybe 15.7 41 44.8 30

No response 4.2 11 11.9 8

Those over 30 years were much less likely to report that they would be involved in graffiti in

the future than younger age cohorts. As Table 10 shows, the group most likely to indicate

that they would write graffiti in the future were those aged 22-23 years: 42.9 per cent of

whom said that they would participate, and 8.6 per cent that they might do so. These

responses emphasise that graffiti is often part of youth cultures and lifestyles.

Table 10: Future participation in graffiti, by age (number and percentages)

Yes No Maybe % n % n % n

Under 14 36.4 4 0.0 0 18.2 2 14-16 26.9 46 2.3 4 11.7 20 17-19 24.9 64 6.6 17 11.3 29 20-21 25.5 14 9.1 5 10.9 6 22-23 42.9 15 2.9 1 8.6 3 24-25 37.9 11 3.4 1 3.4 1 25+ 38.6 17 13.6 6 2.3 1 30+ 10.3 6 8.6 5 6.9 4 40+ 0.0 0 6.5 2 0.0 0

Survey respondents who stated that they wrote graffiti were asked to rank potential

motivating factors, scoring them between 1 (‘most important reason’) and 6 (‘least important

reason’). Table 11 shows the average rating for the six potential reasons: the lower the score

the more importance respondents attached to that reason. The creativity of graffiti again

emerges as an important factor and the desire to cause damage as the least significant

factor. This is also supported by the online survey respondents who stated that expressing

themselves creatively was an important reason for graffiti writing. This form of expression

was even referred to as ‘therapy’ by one respondent.


36

Table 11: Ranking of reasons for graffiti

Reasons for graffiti

Score

Because it is a form of being creative 2.53 Most significant

Because it is fun 2.90

Because I enjoy it 3.15

Because it is exciting 3.18

Because it is part of a group that I hang out with 3.91

Because I want to damage things 5.08 Least significant

All survey respondents, including those who write graffiti and those who do not, were asked

for their opinion on why people write graffiti. Figure 1 shows that those who reported that

they do not participate were more likely to suggest that graffiti was prompted by a desire to

‘break the rules’: 7.2 per cent of non-participants selected this option compared to 2.7 per

cent of participants. Similarly, non-participants were more likely to associate graffiti with the

desire for celebrity (‘because they want to get their name up’) or with peer group activity

(‘because it is part of a group that they hang out with’) than were those who participated.

Conversely, those who participated in graffiti were more likely than non-participants to

suggest that creativity is the primary motivation of graffiti writers: 21.5 per cent of writers

suggested this was the key motivating factor, the most cited factor among this cohort.

Enjoyment and excitement were also more likely to be cited by participants in graffiti writing

(15.7 and 5.7 per cent of graffiti writers respectively). Focus group participants noted that

graffiti writers in general often participated for pleasure, enjoyment and to achieve a measure

of local celebrity:

Busting out, mixing different colours. Doing different styles (Focus group

participant)

They wanna get famous (Focus group participant)

No, they do it cos it’s a fact that you get noticed by other people (Focus

group participant)

For some people it is the only thing they are good at (Focus group

participant)

If you are in a gang you gotta get your name out there (Focus group

participant).


37

Figure 1: Reasons people write graffiti, per cent, by personal involvement

Non-graffiti writers

2.0%

5.4%7.2%

4.9% 4.3%

9.0%

19.6%

12.4%

15.3%

2.2%

8.5%

.7%

8.5%

Bec

ause

it is

exci

ting

For

a se

nse

ofac

com

plis

hmen

t

Bec

ause

itbr

eaks

the

rul

es

Non

e of

the

abov

e

Bec

ause

of

the

sens

e of

ris

k or

dang

er

Bec

ause

the

yen

joy

it

Bec

ause

the

yw

ant

to g

etth

eir

nam

e up

Bec

ause

it is

part

of

a gr

oup

that

the

y ha

ngB

ecau

se it

is a

form

of

bein

gcr

eati

ve

Bec

ause

the

yw

ant

to d

amag

eth

ings

Bec

ause

the

yfe

el li

ke t

hey

don'

t ha

ve a

Bec

ause

the

yar

e an

gry

orfr

ustr

ated

Non

-res

pons

e

Sometime graffiti writers

6.0%

1.5%.0%

3.0% 3.0%

11.9% 11.9%

9.0%

19.4%

.0%

11.9%

.0%

22.4%

Bec

ause

it is

exci

ting

For

a se

nse

ofac

com

plis

hmen

t

Bec

ause

itbr

eaks

the

rul

es

Non

e of

the

abov

e

Bec

ause

of

the

sens

e of

ris

k or

dang

er

Bec

ause

the

yen

joy

it

Bec

ause

the

yw

ant

to g

etth

eir

nam

e up

Bec

ause

it is

part

of

a gr

oup

that

the

y ha

ngB

ecau

se it

is a

form

of

bein

gcr

eati

ve

Bec

ause

the

yw

ant

to d

amag

eth

ings

Bec

ause

the

yfe

el li

ke t

hey

don'

t ha

ve a

Bec

ause

the

yar

e an

gry

orfr

ustr

ated

Non

-res

pons

e

'Yes' graffiti writer

5.7

2.3 2.73.8

2.3

15.7 15.7

8.8

21.5

0.8

7.3

2.3

11.1

Bec

ause

it is

exci

ting

For

a se

nse

ofac

com

plis

hmen

t

Bec

ause

itbr

eaks

the

rul

es

Non

e of

the

abov

e

Bec

ause

of

the

sens

e of

ris

k or

dang

er

Bec

ause

the

yen

joy

it

Bec

ause

the

yw

ant

to g

etth

eir

nam

e up

Bec

ause

it is

part

of

a gr

oup

that

the

y ha

ng

Bec

ause

it is

afo

rm o

f be

ing

crea

tive

Bec

ause

the

yw

ant

to d

amag

eth

ings

Bec

ause

the

yfe

el li

ke t

hey

don'

t ha

ve a

Bec

ause

the

yar

e an

gry

orfr

ustr

ated

Non

-res

pons

e


38

All survey respondents, whether they reported that they wrote graffiti or not, were asked

whether they felt the illegal nature of writing made it more attractive. Figure 2 shows that a

majority of respondents, whether they wrote or not, tended to agree that the illicit nature of

graffiti made it more exciting. Analysis of the survey results showed no differences in

response on this issue in terms of age, gender or ethnicity. Agreement was strongest among

those relatively involved in graffiti activity with 22.9 per cent ‘strongly agreeing’ that illegality

made it more attractive. Online survey respondents cited the ‘thrill’ of illicit activity by stating

that they stopped because of:

Not feeling the buzz to hit up anymore (Online survey respondent)

Focus group participants noted different views of the excitement associated with writing graffiti:

Yeah, you get a buzz but not because it is exciting (Focus group participant)

It’s exciting. If you see a cop and you haven’t finished your piece you got to get away (Focus group participant) Just do it because we do it. Nothing else to do in the ‘hood (Focus group participant)

Figure 2: Graffiti is more exciting because it is illegal, by (non)involvement in writing

5.4%

8.6%

25.2%

45.2%

15.6%

3.8%

11.5%

28.8%

44.2%

11.5%

5.2%

8.7%

25.1%

38.1%

22.9%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nordisagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No Sometimes Yes

The attraction of the illicit nature of graffiti was apparent in focus group discussion. Many

respondents spoke about the adrenalin rush they associated with graffiti and tagging activity

and that this would be muted if it were legalised. Others reported that being caught would

change attitudes toward potential future offending. The following excerpts reflect these

views:


39

Depends on whether you’ve been caught or not. Before you get caught it is

exciting but after you have been caught then you just don’t wanna get caught


You don’t get a rush from something you are allowed to do (Focus group

participant)

It would still be exciting if it was legal but it would be way reduced (Focus

group participant).

Desistance from graffiti and tagging All survey respondents were asked if they felt that ‘more effort should be made to stop

graffiti’. Table 12 indicates views were near equally divided among all respondents but that

the youngest age cohort and older groups (those over 30 years) strongly favoured more

effort to stop graffiti. Differences between ethnic groups were also apparent, although not

Table 12: Should more effort be made to stop graffiti, by gender, age, ethnicity

and participation (number and percentages)

Yes No % n % n All 49.8 344 50.2 347 Male 41.1 153 58.9 219 Female 59.9 191 40.1 128

Under 14 72.7 8 27.3 3 14-16 55.0 94 45.0 77 17-19 50.2 129 49.8 128 20-21 38.2 21 61.8 34 22-23 48.6 17 51.4 18 24-25 34.5 10 65.5 19 25+ 29.5 13 70.5 31 30+ 58.6 34 41.4 24 40+ 58.1 18 41.9 13

NZ European 57.8 155 42.2 113 Māori 38.8 45 61.2 71 Pacific peoples 64.1 25 35.9 14 Asian 69.4 25 30.6 11 European 19.3 11 80.7 46 Other ethnicity 48.2 53 51.8 57

Have not written 65.6 267 34.4 140 Have written 24.6 57 75.4 175 Have written ‘sometimes’ 38.5 20 61.5 32


40

clear-cut: Māori and European respondents were more strongly against greater preventative

efforts than other ethnic groups. Those who had not participated were more likely to agree

that more should be done than those who had, and those who had participated only

‘sometimes’ were more likely to want more effort to stop graffiti than those who might be

considered more involved.

Those who engaged in graffiti were asked a series of questions about factors that might lead

them to stop writing in general terms. Table 13 shows that the quick removal of graffiti, a key

plank of much local government policy, was rated very lowly as a reason for graffiti writers to

stop: only 3.4 per cent of writers and 3.0 per cent of ‘sometime’ writers stated that this would

be the main reason why they would desist. The online survey respondents also highlighted

that graffiti removal presents a challenge to writers but in some cases provides a better

surface for doing graffiti on:

…In actual fact your anti tag paint creates us an easier surface to paint on. Bare

brick walls and bare wooden fences eat spray paint and makes it hard to paint, buff

paint makes a nice solid surface to paint on. (Online survey respondent).

The most significant reason to stop, across all groups, was apprehension by police. Factors

relating to ‘peer pressure’ or family disapproval were not cited as the strongest reasons to

desist. Those who reported that they write graffiti were more likely to report that none of the

potential factors listed would stop them from participating. This proportion was smaller

among those who reported that they had written graffiti ‘sometimes’.

The survey offered respondents the opportunity to include ‘free text’ comments about

reasons why they might stop graffiti. More than 100 comments were added, many of which

noted, in various terms, that nothing would stop them from writing. Common sentiments

included:

Nothing would stop me (Online Survey respondent)

If my hands were cut off (Online Survey respondent)

Nothing. I'm in it for life (Online Survey respondent)

Cut out my hands (Online Survey respondent)

I will never stop (Online Survey respondent).


41

Table 13: Reasons to stop doing graffiti (number and percentages)

Graffiti writers Have written ‘sometimes’

% n % n

Being caught 6.9 18 9.0 6

Being apprehended by police 20.3 53 23.9 16

‘If my friends didn’t like what I was doing’ 6.9 18 6.0 4

If the graffiti was removed soon after I did it 3.4 9 3.0 2

If my family disapproved 6.5 17 9.0 6

None of these 51.0 133 37.3 25

Comments from the survey showed that many respondents recognised that they might stop

participating in graffiti for ‘life course’ reasons which is widely held as important in desistance

from youth crime more generally (Sampson and Laub, 1993). Respondents cited

employment, changing religious practices and parenthood as factors that might deter them

from continuing to write graffiti. Typical comments included:

Having a proper job and working full-time (Online Survey respondent)

Growing up. Finding other forms of expression … (Online Survey respondent)

Growing up and getting over that stage in your life!!! (Online Survey respondent)

Figure 3 shows that the prospect of being caught or being apprehended by the police was

stated as the reason to stop graffiti by over one third (37.5 per cent) of those who reported

that they were engaged in vandalism. Interpreting these findings is difficult: it could be the

case that those involved in graffiti or tagging are in general conforming and law abiding, and

therefore not involved in other criminal activities apart from graffiti writing. This is supported

to some extent by the focus group data, as there was little reporting of other anti-social

behaviour or criminal activities. Those that were alluded to were ‘status offences’ such as

underage drinking. It should be noted that the majority of focus group respondents stated

drugs and alcohol adversely affected their ability to graffiti and that these substances were

avoided while graffiti writing. The speedy removal of graffiti was a greater deterrence for

those who categorised their graffiti as tagging or as ‘graffiti art’: almost no respondents in

other categories reported that this would be reason for them to stop. These variations

notwithstanding, the most common response across all forms was that none of these

strategies would lead respondents to desist from graffiti. This response is to be expected if

the reasons for desistence are linked to desistence from youth crime in general, such as

growing up. The strategies or reasons referred to in this question are not linked to these

desistence factors.


42

Figure 3: Reason to stop graffiti, by form of graffiti (percentage)

Table 14 shows that possible reasons for stopping graffiti varied according to age. The

findings indicate that peer and family pressure may become less of an influence on

desistance decisions as respondents got older, although the small number of older

respondents means that this must be regarded as highly tentative. For all groups, the most

common response was to select ‘none of these’, although younger participants chose this to a

lesser extent than their older counterparts: those aged 22-23 years were most likely to report

that none of the factors listed would cause them to stop writing graffiti. The data suggested

Stylised w riting

10.0%

23.3%

13.3%

.0% .0%

53.3%B

eing

cau

ght

Bei

ngap

preh

ende

dby

pol

ice

If m

y fr

iend

sdi

d no

t lik

ew

hat

I w

asdo

ing

If t

he g

raff

iti

was

rem

oved

soon

aft

er I

did

it

if m

y fa

mily

disa

ppro

ved

Non

e of

thes

eVandalism

25.0%

12.5% 12.5%

.0% .0%

50.0%

Bei

ng c

augh

t

Bei

ngap

preh

ende

dby

pol

ice

If m

y fr

iend

sdi

d no

t lik

ew

hat

I w

asdo

ing

If t

he g

raff

iti

was

rem

oved

soon

aft

er I

did

it

if m

y fa

mily

disa

ppro

ved

Non

e of

thes

e

Graffiti art

3.9%

19.5%

10.4% 10.4%5.2%

50.6%

Bei

ng c

augh

t

Bei

ngap

preh

ende

dby

pol

ice

If m

y fr

iend

sdi

d no

t lik

ew

hat

I w

asdo

ing

If t

he g

raff

iti

was

rem

oved

soon

aft

er I

did

it

if m

y fa

mily

disa

ppro

ved

Non

e of

thes

e

Tagging

10.2%14.3%

6.1% 4.1%

18.4%

46.9%

Bei

ng c

augh

t

Bei

ngap

preh

ende

dby

pol

ice

If m

y fr

iend

sdi

d no

t lik

ew

hat

I w

asdo

ing

If t

he g

raff

iti

was

rem

oved

soon

aft

er I

did

it

if m

y fa

mily

disa

ppro

ved

Non

e of

thes

e

Political expression

.0%

14.3% 14.3%

.0%7.1%

64.3%

Bei

ng c

augh

t

Bei

ngap

preh

ende

dby

pol

ice

If m

y fr

iend

sdi

d no

t lik

ew

hat

I w

asdo

ing

If t

he g

raff

iti

was

rem

oved

soon

aft

er I

did

it

if m

y fa

mily

disa

ppro

ved

Non

e of

thes

e

None of these

8.3%12.5% 12.5%

.0%4.2%

62.5%

Bei

ng c

augh

t

Bei

ngap

preh

ende

dby

pol

ice

If m

y fr

iend

sdi

d no

t lik

ew

hat

I w

asdo

ing

If t

he g

raff

iti

was

rem

oved

soon

aft

er I

did

it

if m

y fa

mily

disa

ppro

ved

Non

e of

thes

e


43

no clear pattern in terms of gender or ethnic differences in attitudes toward factors that

might lead respondents to stop writing graffiti.

Table 14: Reasons to stop graffiti, by age (number and percentages) Being caught Being

apprehended by police

Friends’ disapproval

Family disapproval

Removal None of these

% n % n % n % n % n % n

All respondents

7.8 24 22.5 69 7.2 22 7.5 23 3.6 11 51.5 158

Under 14 0.0 0 16.7 1 16.7 1 16.7 1 0.0 0 50.0 3

14-16 8.7 6 15.9 11 14.5 10 8.7 6 4.3 3 47.8 33

17-19 7.3 8 29.4 32 5.5 6 10.1 11 3.7 4 44.0 48

20-21 20.0 5 16.0 4 0.0 0 8.0 2 0.0 0 56.0 14

22-23 0.0 0 21.1 4 5.3 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 73.7 14

24-25 7.7 1 30.8 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.7 1 53.8 7

Over 25 0.0 0 29.2 7 4.2 1 4.2 1 4.2 1 58.3 14

Over 30 6.7 1 26.7 4 6.7 1 6.7 1 0.0 0 53.3 8

Over 40 0.0 0 50.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 50.0 1

Have written 7.3 18 21.4 53 7.3 18 6.9 17 3.6 9 53.6 133

Have ‘sometimes’ written

10.2 6 27.1 16 6.8 4 10.2 6 3.4 2 42.4 25

Table 14 also indicates that those who have written graffiti were less likely to agree that

being apprehended would stop people writing graffiti, whereas those who had ‘sometimes’

written graffiti were more likely to suggest that this would cause people to desist.

All respondents, whether they wrote graffiti or not, were asked to rank a similar list of

reasons why those who participate might stop doing graffiti on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is

the most effective and 5 the least effective). Table 15 shows the average rating from all

respondents: the lower the average rating the more effective the item was rated. As was

found in relation to perceived reasons for personal desistance, the quick removal of graffiti

was rated as a relatively ineffective means to stop people writing.


44

Table 15: Average rating of reasons to stop doing graffiti

Reasons to stop doing graffiti Rating

Being apprehended by police 2.34 Most effective

If my friends didn’t like what I was doing 2.56

Being caught 2.70

If my family disapproved 3.46

If the graffiti was removed soon after I did it 3.80 Least effective

Others stated that having legal graffiti walls or ‘tolerance zones’ would stop them from doing

graffiti illegally.

Having areas where Graffiti-Art was legal would stop me from expressing my art in

public places that are considered illegal (Online survey respondent)

If there were public places where one could demonstrate their art which was allowed

then that would help. If you look into Venice Beach or a place called homeland, they

have areas and competitions where you have a piece of wall and are free to

demonstrate your work. Please look into this (Online survey respondent).

Other ways to deter people from tagging were as highlighted as:

No one will paint on plants. So build a fence or framing against the wall and grow a

vine over it. Sure it costs money but you only need to do it once on that wall rather

than using your so called ‘ant-tag’ paint weekly (Online survey respondent)

There should be a big building with a competition with inside walls. Make them

practice at home and then have prizes of the best wall. It would be like an art gallery


All respondents were asked to rate five approaches to stopping young people writing graffiti,

all of which are practiced or have been proposed in recent debates about tagging and graffiti

in New Zealand. Respondents were asked to ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither agree nor

disagree’, ‘disagree or strongly disagree’; each category was scored, from 5 for strongly

agree down to 1 for strongly disagree. In aggregate terms, Table 16 shows the average score

for each option:


45

Table 16: Average score for strategies to stop graffiti

Strategies to stop graffiti Average score

Providing legitimate sites (e.g. graffiti walls) 4.1 Strongest agreement

Making offenders clean-up graffiti 3.4

Better education on victim impact 3.1

Custodial sentences 3.1

‘Naming and shaming’ offenders 2.9 Weakest agreement

Focus group discussion also reflected a preference for the provision of legitimate sites at

which graffiti could be written. Requiring taggers to participate in ‘clean up’ programmes was

regarded by many as counter-productive and that ‘naming and shaming’ activities such as the

Wellington ‘pink vest’ solution might also have unintended consequences. The following

responses reflected these discussions:

By making a place where they can tag [graffiti will be reduced] (Focus group

participant)

Places that people can just go and hit up. Graff spots (Focus group participant)

Youth workers to connect with them (Focus group participant)

[Making taggers clean up?] You’ll make the taggers angry, and that is why it

goes up (Focus group participant)

The pink vest – that is shaming eh? (Focus group participant)

We just have a laugh about it (Focus group participant)

It is going to make them tag more (Focus group participant)

It will piss some people off, having to clean up other people’s work, unless

they are tight with those people (Focus group participant).

Cos if you have one of those jackets and you are scrubbing off a ‘mean as’ piece that

is fame (Focus group participant)

It would make me go out more (Focus group participant)

Figure 4 shows that support for the various measures that might prevent graffiti varied

between those who participated, sometimes participated or were non-participants. The figure

shows the proportion of respondents who ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the various

strategies. While there was broad support for the provision of legitimate venues in which


46

graffiti could be written (so-called ‘zones of tolerance’) – to which around 80 per cent of all

three groups ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ – those who wrote graffiti (whether relatively often

or only occasionally) reported much less agreement for measures than did those who were

non-graffiti writers. The comments provided by more than 100 respondents provide some

insight into the impact that the provision of legal sites for graffiti had:

… I love to walk around the city and see little doodles in imaginative places. I think

that maybe there should be areas which are okay to graffiti, but have these areas

monitored to ensure there’s no gang tagging. (Online survey respondent).

Figure 4: Strategies to prevent graffiti, by participation (per cent agree/strongly agree)

As noted in the literature review, several community projects involving painting murals have

had success in deterring graffiti vandalism or tagging. Graffiti writers from both the survey

and the focus groups also stated that they would not tag respected murals, and agreed that

this would be an effective strategy to deter graffiti vandalism or tagging.

For the respect of ‘Graffiti Art’ I would not go round taggin on a piece of artwork


….. or if there was an art work/mural on the surface [I wouldn’t graffiti or tag it]


82.4%

42.3%

54.0%

68.6%

47.8%

33.5%

23.8%25.4%

33.8%

78.8%

52.9%

45.1%41.3%

50.4%

78.2%

Legitimate venues Offender clean-up Name and shame'offenders

Custodial sentences Education on victim impact

Writers Sometime writers Non-writers


47

If you put a bombing on a wall it will stop people just putting gang signs and stuff on

it. So that is why you gotta put a mural on it (Focus group participant)

If they did something cool there [on a subway that is regularly hit with graffiti] it

wouldn’t get tagged (Focus group participant).

Participants in graffiti were less likely to agree that offender clean-up programmes, ‘naming

and shaming’ of offenders, custodial sentences or educational initiatives would prove effective

in stopping young people from writing graffiti. The views of ‘sometime participants’ tended to

more closely relate to those who were ‘non-participants’; they tended to agree in greater

numbers that educational initiatives would prove effective desistance strategies. Focus group

discussion considered the impact that various responses to graffiti and tagging might have

and tended to suggest that tougher criminal justice sanctions might not directly deter

offenders:

[If given community service] You would probably do 50 hours, half of that then

get back and do some more tagging (Focus group participant)

I think the way of putting in harsher punishments for young people isn’t going

to do anything because young people don’t have much of an outlet in the first

place. So doing this sort of stuff and punishing them for it is just going to

make them even more rebellious. If you actually give them an outlet to do it

that is what will solve the problem. Rather than punishing them for expressing

themselves (Focus group participant).


48

Discussion and conclusion The results presented above have implications for policy makers and the wide range of

agencies involved in crime prevention initiatives. Four themes of general significance emerge

from the data:

• it is clear that graffiti writers do not form a group clearly or wholly distinct from non-

graffiti writers;

• graffiti is a meaningful cultural and social practice for writers and only indirectly

appreciated for its illegality;

• for some (but not all), graffiti writing is associated with a desire for local celebrity,

and;

• graffiti writers’ perspectives on desistance suggest highly bounded rationality about

prevention strategies such that consequences and implications were often poorly

understood and not considered. Each of these is discussed in turn, and policy

implications of each are highlighted.

The research findings provide little evidence to suggest that graffiti writers are a distinct sub-

group among young people with identifiable perceptions of graffiti, and the most appropriate

responses to it, that differ from the wider population. Although graffiti writers were less likely

to report that graffiti was ‘always a bad thing’, the survey data show that participants and

non-participants tended to share a contextual view of graffiti that recognises it has negative

consequences in some circumstances. Similarly, all respondents to the survey tend to ‘agree’

or ‘strongly agree’ that graffiti is an art form, and a form of personal expression that required

creativity. They also tended to agree that it had negative attributes in terms of property

damage and affect on residents’ perceptions of their neighbourhood. Attitudes toward graffiti

were shaped by fine judgements relating to the perceived legitimacy of the venue, the

physical challenges overcome to write on that location, and the aesthetic value of the graffiti

itself. Even those who engaged in graffiti writing and appreciated it as an artistically

worthwhile activity tended to report that some venues, such as schools or marae, were not

legitimate sites for graffiti. As cited earlier, one focus group participant summarised the

informal criteria surrounding the location of graffiti thus: ‘there are rules, you know, even the

graffiti guys have rules – so when someone breaks them it’s the pits. You know, the OG

writers don’t tag churches or private property, schools. But people break those rules, most of

the time it’s just hooligans’. Responses to graffiti writing that cast participants as antisocial

criminals are unlikely to coincide with young people’s perceptions and attitudes toward graffiti

and tagging, which are bound up with conceptions of the value of private property and public

venues that are not legitimate sites for writing.


49

A second key finding from the study is that participants understand graffiti writing as an

activity that is meaningful in cultural and aesthetic terms. Cultural criminologists argue young

people invest intensely in activities such as graffiti that have a myriad of complex meanings

to them. Those who are already involved in graffiti writing see it as meaningful in some way

and intend to carry on writing. The informal codes that deem some sites as valid for graffiti

while defining others as unacceptable are themselves mediated by aesthetic judgements

about the content of graffiti and tagging. As was noted in Table 2, more than 80 per cent of

respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that graffiti is an art form and it was very apparent

from focus group discussions that it is an activity imbued with cultural meaning that can be

greatly valued by participants. Artistic meaning is evidenced by the careful distinctions made

about different forms of writing and the relative merit of highly crafted conceptualised

‘pieces’, which are ranked as more significant than ‘bombs’ (stylised writing) compared to

‘tags’. Focus group discussion showed that graffiti is understood by writers as an engaging

active event, something that happens and is corporeal (as Halsey and Young (2000) put it, it

connects the writer to the urban landscape) but for non-writers, willing or unwilling,

consumers, viewers or spectators, it is a product: a material outcome that signifies criminal

damage or trespass of some kind that is not judged in aesthetic terms. Writers have very

different relations with graffiti and value the skill, imagination and audacity – and perhaps the

collaboration – that has been invested in the production of a piece. This contrasts vividly with

the relationship of the passive viewer to the finished product. The pleasure and enjoyment

that participants derive from writing graffiti is associated not with the damage to property

that preoccupies owners – which graffiti writers recognise as they report that they would be

unhappy were their own property targeted – but with the physical challenge of producing

complex artistic forms in difficult circumstances. The illegality of graffiti is an important

dimension of the excitement (often described in focus groups and the online survey as the

‘adrenalin rush’) associated with writing, and many respondents spoke of the fun associated

with evading police and other authorities. The importance of illegality in understanding graffiti

is further complicated since it is also apparent that graffiti is not always easily equated with

criminal damage or vandalism although it often incorporates damage to property (Craw,

Leland et al., 2006). It must be stated that graffiti artists do not necessarily engage in other

forms of vandalism, for example, damaging train seats and windows, or in criminal activity

related to gang activity or drug and alcohol use (Halsey and Young 2006).

The findings clearly show that graffiti writing is imbued with meaning derived from a

combination of an appreciation of the aesthetic merits of a mural and an evaluation of

respect for the perceived effort and risk involved in its production. Focus group respondents

often spoke about graffiti as a craft that requires dedication and learning, as practitioners

develop from informal scribbles and tagging to pieces that require greater technical skill and

an appreciation of artistic and cultural reference points associated with the art form. Some of


50

these techniques and conventions were learnt and developed through association with more

established practitioners in ways not wholly unlike more conventional apprenticeships. Not all

those who do ‘throw ups’, ‘bombs’ or ‘stompies’ will develop the necessary talent and

application to progress to more aesthetic pieces worthy of greater respect. In these terms,

young people discussed different styles and levels of graffiti in ways that might often be

associated with the practice of legitimate art forms and skills.

Crime prevention and policy responses need to understand the cultural meaning and value

attached to many forms of graffiti and to move beyond simplistic dichotomies between art

and criminal damage. One of the key findings of this research is that young people tend to

associate both with graffiti writing but that the artistic merit associated with complex

sophisticated pieces is held to outweigh problems of crime and property damage. This

perspective also raises questions about eradication programmes based on the speedy

removal of graffiti. Largely based on an epidemiological approach that assumes the presence

of graffiti encourages imitative behaviour, eradication programmes effectively contest control

over territory in ways that exacerbate the risks and challenges that attract writers in the first

place (Ferrell, 1995).

A third key feature of the research findings relates to the importance of celebrity and local

fame associated with graffiti writing. While the gaining and sustaining of respect through

graffiti might seem invalid or relatively hollow to those not involved, it was clearly an

important motivator for young people, and even those who did not participate in writing

spoke about reading local tags and graffiti in these terms. Pursuing peer group credibility

might take other forms among other sections of society but it is not an activity pursued only

by youth subcultures (Halsey and Young, 2006: 281). Indeed graffiti and tagging might be

considered a form of micro-celebrity not wholly divorced from other forms of media in

contemporary society. The proliferation of websites and social media that celebrate graffiti

tend to reinforce the idea that this form of recognition can be considered on a spectrum with

other more apparently legitimate avenues to secure respect through recognition. The

increasing salience of hip hop culture, from which much graffiti culture emerged in the United

States in the late 1970s and 1980s within mainstream TV, music, film, internet and gaming

media, underpins the blurred boundaries between celebrity status that can be gained from

illegal graffiti and legitimate cultural forms (Ferrell, 1993; Halsey and Young, 2006). While

gaining respect was an important facet of writing for many respondents to this study, this

was sometimes tempered by the need to protect identity in order to avoid detection. An

attractive part of the subterfuge associated with writing is the distinction between securing

recognition for tags or particular graffiti style and the maintenance of individual anonymity.

This might have consequences in terms of crime prevention and detection since efforts to

collate databases of prolific local taggers serve to reinforce recognition and cement writers’

reputations for renowned high-profile work. Some research respondents reflected on this in


51

focus group discussion. One survey respondent argued that media coverage in general

reinforces the attraction of writing, arguing that an important strategy to stop graffiti and

tagging would be to:

QUIT the media coverage!!! If you show tags on tv, Its Tags you will get!! show

some good stuff for once .. at least that way you will have people doing decent work

in effort to get on tv instead of this scribble rubbish the media promotes. Scribble

Tags are not what graffiti art is about. That’s just what the no namer kids do to get

famous. (Online survey respondent)

The fourth main finding from the study relates more directly to crime prevention initiatives as

it relates to research participants’ perspectives on desistance from graffiti. Many of those who

were ‘occasional’ or ‘frequent’ writers of graffiti reported that none of the preventative

measures identified in the questionnaire would stop them from participating. Almost 70 per

cent of writers said that they would graffiti again and 16 per cent said that they might do so.

Nearly 45 per cent of ‘sometime’ graffiti writers said maybe they would do so in the future. A

majority of both writers and ‘sometime’ writers disagreed that more should be done to tackle

graffiti; for both groups the prospect of being apprehended by the police offered the

strongest reason for them personally to desist. In more general terms, relating to all

participation in graffiti, survey respondents strongly favoured the provision of legitimate

venues as a strategy to prevent graffiti. Clearly more rigorous evaluation of such initiatives is

needed and it seems unlikely that legitimate walls will eradicate illegal graffiti, even if it

reduces its incidence. While respondents reacted more or less favourably to potential

interventions to stop or divert graffiti, it was often apparent that respondents thought little of

wider implications or long-term consequences of writing, either in terms of comeback on

themselves or more generally. One focus group participant observed that ‘some taggers

though don’t even register the severity of what they are doing or the punishment they could

get’. Moreover, since writers are motivated, in part, by the thrill and adrenaline associated

with their activity, the prospect of stronger sanctions was seen by many as adding to risk and

attraction of graffiti writing. In addition, tougher sanctions may elevate the respect that can

be secured through tagging and graffiti. Many comments in the focus group discussion

reflected the perceived limitations of introducing stronger penalties for tagging and graffiti:

Tougher penalties means bigger thrills (Focus group participant)

If you succeed and go to jail you will be seen as a hero among that group or among

your friends or whatever (Focus group participant)

The implications of this survey and focus group research for policy responses to graffiti and

tagging are many and various. Key among these are that young people expressed a wide-

range of perspectives on graffiti and tagging, and that those who admitted some degree of

participation did not always differ greatly from those who do not participate. Young people


52

had highly nuanced views such that some forms of writing are valued for their artistic content

and the risks override the skill required in producing pieces. Only a small minority of young

people suggested that vandalism and criminal damage were primary motivations. Even those

who admitted participating in graffiti and vandalism maintained that there were areas and

types of property that were not acceptable sites for writing and that these should not be

subject to the damage and ‘disrespect’ sometimes associated with such activity.


53

References Arthur, R. (2006) Family Life and Youth Offending: Home Is Where the Hurt Is, New York:

Routledge. Bottoms, A. (2006) ‘Incivilities, Offence and Social Order in Residential Communities’, in: von

Hirsch, A. and Simester, A.P. (eds) Incivilities: Regulating Offensive Behaviour, Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, pp. 239–280.

Bryman, A. (2004) Social Science Research Methods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.. City Life Independent Herald (2009) ‘Tagging escalates after spray can theft’, March 11th. Coleman, C. and Moynihan, J. (1996) Understanding Crime Data, Buckingham: Open

University Press. Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (eds) (1986) Reasoning Criminal - Rational Choice Perspectives

on Offending, New Jersey: Springer-Verlag. Craw, P.J., Leland, Jr., L.S., et al. (2006) ‘The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence’, Environment and

Behavior, 38(3), pp. 422-434. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dominion Post (2008) 'Taggers in pink while cleaning up their work’ 4th June. Doran, B. and Lees, B. (2005) ‘Investigating the Spatiotemporal Links Between Disorder,

Crime and the Fear of Crime’, The Professional Geographer, 57(1) pp.1-12. Ferrell, J. (1993) Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality, New York:

Garland. Ferrell, J. (1995) 'Urban Graffiti - Crime, Control and Resistance', Youth and Society, 27(1),

pp. 73-92. Gilbert, N. (ed) (2008) Researching Social Life, London: Sage. Goldson, B., (ed) (2007) The Dictionary of Youth Justice, Willan: Cullompton.. Halsey, M. and Young, A. (2002) 'The Meaning of Graffiti and Municipal Administration', The

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 35(2), pp. 165-186. Halsey, M. and Young, A. (2006) ''Our Desires are Ungovernable': Writing Graffiti in Urban

space', Theoretical Criminology, 10(3), pp. 275-306. Hastings District Council (2008) Graffiti Vandalism Strategy 2008, Hastings: Hastings District

Council. Herbert, D. (1993) ‘Neighbourhood Incivilities and the Study of Crime in Place’, Area, 25, pp.

45-54. Innes, M. (2004) ‘Reinventing Tradition? Reassurance, Neighbourhood Security and Policing’,

Criminal Justice, 4 (2), pp. 151-171. Jeffery, C. R. (1971) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Beverly Hills and

London: Sage. Jupp, V. (2001) 'Appreciative Criminology', in McLauglin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds) The Sage

Dictionary of Criminology, London: Sage, pp. 12-13. Jupp.V, Davies. P, & Francis, P. (eds) (2000) Doing Criminological Research, Sage, London. Katz, J. (1988) Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil, New York:

Basic Books. Koubaridis, A., Vass, B., et al. (2008) ‘The Day Bruce Emery Saw Red’, Auckland: APN News

& Media. Matza, D. (1969) Becoming Deviant, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Ministry of Justice (2006) How to STOP Graffiti Guide, Wellington: Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice (2006) KnowHow Beat Graffiti Guide, Wellington: Ministry of Justice.


54

Ministry of Justice (2008) Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Grant Fund Application Guidelines 2008/09, Wellington: Ministry of Justice.

Ministry of Justice (2008) STOP Strategy, Crime Prevention Unit, Wellington: Ministry of Justice.

Moffitt, T.E. (1993) ‘Adolescence-Limited and Life Course Persistent Antisocial Behaviour: A Developmental Taxonomy’, Psychological Review, 100, pp. 674-701.

New Zealand Government (2008) Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Act 2008, Wellington: New Zealand Government.

Noakes, L. and Wincup, E. (2004) Criminological Research: Understanding Qualitative Methods, London: Sage.

Pain, R. and Francis, P. (2003) ‘Reflections on Participatory Research’, Area, 35(1), pp. 46-54.

Police News (2008) ‘Tagging: the Scourge of Our Streets’, January/February, pp. 12-16. Stanko, E (2000) ‘Victims R Us: the Life History of ‘Fear of Crime’ and the Politicisation of

Violence’, in Hope, T. and Sparks, R. (eds) Crime, Risk and Insecurity, London: Routledge..

White, R. (2001) ‘Grafffiti, Crime Prevention and Cultural Space’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 12(3) pp. 253-68.

Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G. (1982) ‘The Police and Neighbourhood Safety’, Atlantic Monthly, March, pp. 28-38.

Wortley, R. and Mazerolle, L. (eds) (2008) Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

55

Appendix one: on-line survey


56


57


58


59


60


61

Appendix two: schedule for focus group discussion

The aims of this research project are • To find out why people do graffiti and or tagging • To find out how young people feel about graffiti and those who do it • To find out if there are any ways that graffiti can be prevented The focus groups will ask participants for their opinions and to share their knowledge about graffiti and tagging. Preamble: As you might know, there has been a lot of discussion about the issue of tagging and graffiti in New Zealand in recent months. We want to discuss these topics with you today, so that we can understand young people’s perspectives on these important issues. The discussion will last for around 1 hour and is being recorded. Your personal details will remain confidential and you will not be identified in any of the reports based on this discussion. Note for facilitator: the key questions are listed below, with supplementary suggestions beneath each point. It is important that each key question is covered. If significant additional points are raised during the discussion please note them but move on and return to them at the end, should time permit. 1. Have you ever discussed tagging and graffiti with your friends?

• do you think that tagging and graffiti are serious problems in your area? • where are you most likely to see tagging and graffiti in your area?

2. How do you feel when you see tagging and graffiti?

• Do your feelings change depending on where the tagging and graffiti is? 3. Do you think that graffiti is art or is it vandalism?

• Is tagging and graffiti linked to problem behaviour, such as underage drinking, drug-taking, vandalism, and so on?

4. Does anyone that you know do tagging or graffiti?

• Would they boast about it to their friends? 5. Should tagging and graffiti be allowed in some places?

• What places would be ok? • Do you feel differently about graffiti and tagging depending on where it is?

A school compared to waste-ground, for example? 6. Would tougher penalties stop people from tagging?

• If not, what other measures might stop graffiti and tagging?


62

Appendix three: profile of focus groups Focus groups run by VUW researchers Location and sponsoring organisation

Date Number of participants

NZ Institute of Sport, Wellington 30 April 2009 17 (in two groups)

Hutt Valley High School, Alternative Education Centre

4 May 2009 14

Wellington City Mission, Alternative Education Centre

6 May 2009 11

New Lynn, Tag Out Trust 8 May 2009 7

Manurewa, Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust

8 May 2009 7

Rangatahi, Wainuiomata, Alternative Education Centre

13 May 2009 3

59 total

Focus groups run by Ministry of Youth Development staff

Location and sponsoring organisation

Date Number of participants

Auckland City Council Graffiti Free Project

15 April 2009 15

Christchurch, YMCA 8 April 2009 12

Highbury Community and Whānau Centre, Palmerston North

20 April 2009 15

Otaki, House of Hope 20 April 2009 10

Mangere Bridge, Tamatiaro Trust, Youth Training Programme

14 April 2009 30 (in two groups)

Napier, Napier Youth Council 16 April 2009 10

Whangarei, Bream Bay Community Centre

7 April 2009 6

Stratford, Youth Council 21 April 2009 10

Rotorua, Te Arawa Lakes Trust 22 April 2009 20 (in two groups)

Whangarei, People Potential 6 April 2009 9

Christchurch, Project Legit 8 April 2009 8

145 total

Date post:	24-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Tagging and Graffiti: attitudes and experiences of New Zealanders · • graffiti writers’...

Documents