Environmental design cannot eliminate crime because it does not attack its root causes. Oscar Newman's controversial book, 'Defensible Space,' asserts that better lighting, more police, and stronger locks cannot deter crime unless residents become the critical agents in their own security. Neighborhoods that conform to the principles of defensible space, i.e., an environment that generates opportunities for people to see and be seen continuously, have lower rates of crime, vandalism, and turnover. But designing defensible space is not the panacea its proponents had hoped, nor is it as irrelevant as some detractors have contended. Researchers who looked at crime from the perspective of the criminal suggest that burglars ask themselves five kinds of questions: (1) How detectable am I? For instance, where are windows and doors positioned, and how far is it from the street to the house? (2) Are there any real barriers present, such as strong locks, a gate, or an alarm system? (3) Are there any symbolic barriers present such as 'Neighborhood Watch' signs or similar indicators of territoriality and vigilance? (4) Are there traces of presence or lack of activity on the part of residents, such as the lights on or newspapers still in the driveway? (5) What is the social climate in the area? When this criminal opportunity theory was tested in three Atlanta neighborhoods, researchers found that the low crime neighborhoods were more residential, had less public parking, and fewer through-streets. Other researchers found that while a neighborhood may be architecturally designed to encourage defense against crime, it still may not be defended because there is little or no social cohesion. 4 illustrations.