(2013) reported that there may be as many as 4 million privately and publicly owned cameras in London alone. .
In 2007, the UK Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) stated that the effectiveness of CCTV did not meet expectations (Bowcott, 2008). Although surveillance technology has contributed to protecting the public, the lack of strategic direction and coordinated approach to its development were among the main reasons for this failure (Laidler, 2008). More recently, however, CCTV has received support from anti-terrorist organisations that offered a more integrated approach to surveillance. Haggerty (2009) suggested using CCTV in combination with situational crime prevention measures such as listening devices, email and phone activity databases, and car records to contribute to the effectiveness of this crime prevention strategy. Nevertheless, the role of surveillance technology in public safety management is still not clear (Agustina and Clavell, 2011; McLean et al., 2013). .
The issue of CCTV's effectiveness was discussed by Agustina and Clavell (2011). According to the researchers, surveillance systems are highly effective in preventing crimes since offenders who realise that they are being watched will not risk committing crimes. At the same time, potential criminals who do not see surveillance cameras will commit a crime anyway (Lyon, 2003). It should be added that CCTV is more effective in small sites such as public parking areas rather than housing states (Amoore and De Goede, 2005). Interestingly, Davis (1996) arrived at the conclusion that the effectiveness of surveillance systems in combating violence and disorder is highly limited. Although the implementation of CCTV technology is associated with a number of benefits, it is possible to maximise its effectiveness only by implementing additional situational crime prevention measures. .
Relevant empirical investigation into the effect of public surveillance cameras on crime and disorder was carried out by McLean et al.