Next Article in Journal
Preserving the Past, Embracing the Future: Co-Design Strategies for Achieving Harmony Between Heritage Sites and Accessibility Needs
Previous Article in Journal
Unveiling the Original Polychromy of Archaic Architecture: The Gigantomachy on the West Pediment of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (6th c. B.C.)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Types and Effectiveness of Public Policy Measures Combatting Graffiti Vandalism at Heritage Sites

by
Marko Raič
and
Daniela Angelina Jelinčić
*
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO), 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2025, 8(1), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8010018
Submission received: 26 November 2024 / Revised: 30 December 2024 / Accepted: 3 January 2025 / Published: 6 January 2025

Abstract

:
Graffiti vandalism poses a major threat to cultural heritage. This review paper aims to identify and describe policy measures for combatting graffiti vandalism on heritage assets, which is a significant and complex problem in urban areas worldwide with considerable cultural and economic impacts. Alongside, their effectiveness is assessed. Despite being recognized as a significant problem, research papers addressing graffiti vandalism policies are existent but not adequately systematized. In the first part of this article, a theoretical overview of graffiti vandalism is provided. This is followed by an outline of the research methodology, along with a presentation of results based on the analysis of the reviewed articles. Given the relatively small number of articles that directly address this topic, the review is supplemented with an analysis of best practices, specifically, examining municipal measures and strategies aimed at combating graffiti vandalism.

1. Introduction

Graffiti usually refers to the unlawful writings or drawings on a public surface [1]. The surface they may be applied on varies, from buildings, fences, shop windows, etc. to the means of transport, and may equally be applied on public or private property. Merrill (2015) defines graffiti as an “unauthorized act of inscription onto public or private property” ([2], p. 370), which makes it a subject of criminological studies as an ideological expression of vandalism ([2], p. 370) (Wilson, 1987). The usual purpose is to gain attention, to express oneself either artistically or in terms of ideology, and to feel adrenaline while performing an illegal activity. Some researchers [2] propose the differentiation between graffiti as an artform and random writings and/or drawings, which deface public/private property. However, this is not the case in this study; herewith, the focus is on any type of graffiti, be it artistic or relating to random writings and/or drawings on heritage sites, which pose a huge threat to many urban centers globally. Graffiti is especially harmful if applied on heritage sites, regardless of its form (random or artistic), as it may be a serious threat to heritage values. Thus, although artistic graffiti may have value on its own, in this study, we consider it too as vandalism (any act of intentional destruction of property), as it is harmful to another type of heritage/artform. Cohen, cited in [3], writes about different types of vandalism: acquisitive (the aim is to obtain money or property), tactical (the aim is to achieve other goals), ideological (the aim is to express an ideological attitude), vindictive (the aim is to enact revenge), malicious (the aim is to express aggression or rage), and play vandalism (the aim is to perform a game). Graffiti vandalism may be driven by any of the mentioned types of vandalism; however, this study does not deal with it, as it would require a separate research on graffiti offenders’ motivations; rather, it simply considers any type of graffiti vandalism on heritage sites.
When speaking on the object of the graffiti vandalism in the study—heritage—we refer to the “artefacts, monuments, [individual buildings] (authors’ addition), a group of buildings and sites, museums that have a diversity of values including symbolic, historic, artistic, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological, scientific and social significance” [4]. Graffiti is equally damaging for any other public or private property, but in this study, only a tangible heritage site is taken into account, as it holds specific values.
Although we usually refer to graffiti as writings or drawings, it may also include painting, spraying, or etching, i.e., any type of damaging or defacing of the surface where it is applied. The physical damage graffiti leaves on heritage sites depends on different factors such as the substrate the graffiti is applied on as well as the type of graffiti media (e.g., spray, paint, hard objects, etc.) used. Different methods for graffiti removal (chemical, biological, physical–mechanical, or mixed methods) have been in use with different effectiveness and efficiency. The most obvious damage is certainly the physical mark on heritage sites, and usually, the removal methods applied can be effective on the surface, but the graffiti medium usually leaves a mark in the deeper layers of the substrate. However, the damage on heritage sites cannot be appraised just on its physical aspect. Rather, all these actions applied on heritage sites have huge economic, environmental, and social consequences. Negative economic consequences can be direct or indirect, the direct ones being the costs of their removal and maintenance, and the indirect ones usually refer to increased insurance premiums, decreased visits to heritage sites, and decreased tourist interest. Further on, chemical substances are often used in graffiti removal, which are rather strong and not only affect heritage sites’ aesthetic value, but may be detrimental to the environment and human health. Finally, graffiti may have an impact on negative perception of the urban area where it is applied, also with a bad image of people living in the area, thus pertaining to huge social impacts. Consequentially, it may also have economic impacts on the area, with decreased property values, gentrification, fewer visits, etc. When analyzing its impact on heritage assets alone, it may be specifically detrimental, as it deprives them of inherent heritage values (e.g., aesthetic, educational, scientific, historic, cultural value, as well as the value of uniqueness).
Although data that would allow for a systematic review of the estimated damage caused by graffiti on heritage sites are not readily available, some data on graffiti removal, regardless whether it is applied on heritage or other properties, may be indicative since many urban centers consist of heritage buildings. Thus, research showed that in the City of Zagreb, tourists see graffiti as one of the worst-rated elements when visiting the city, as it suggests a perception of a city that is not clean and taken care of [5]. While data on possible losses caused by such a perception are not available, it is highly assumed that it can affect repeated visits and the likeliness to recommend. Some more concrete estimates of graffiti-caused costs are available for the UK and the USA. In 2005, London spent at least GBP 23 million for removing graffiti [6], while the estimated cost of yearly removal of graffiti in the UK is over GBP 1 billion [7]. In 2021, New York City spent over USD 2 million for graffiti removal [8], while some data show that annually, cities across the USA spend more than USD 12 billion in graffiti cleanup [9]. On top of that, money invested in graffiti removal does not solve the problem since perpetrators tend to do it again, e.g., the City of Edmonton performed repeated audits in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019 and confirmed the repeated graffiti vandalism in terms of the increased number of locations where graffiti was applied (17% more locations compared to 2016 or even 31% compared to 2015), as well as the increased number of tags (24% increase in 2019 than in 2017, 48% higher than in 2016, or even 146% more tags than in 2015) [10]. Recurring graffiti is the issue encountered in many urban centers, which is why broader policies need to be applied in order to solve the problem systematically.
While management of a heritage site is primarily in the hands of a heritage manager/owner, graffiti vandalism cannot be their sole responsibility. It is a wider social issue, which should be addressed at the public level. This means an integrated approach, as it is not a matter of heritage policies only, but often involves other sectors, like those of urban, educational, legislative, criminal, and other policies. A number of cities have experimented with different strategies, policy measures, and actions to alleviate the graffiti vandalism on heritage sites. However, they are not always easily transferrable to other contexts due to different reasons (e.g., different financial, cultural, and other perspectives). Some lessons learned, however, may be applicable, as the struggle against heritage graffiti vandalism should be a common goal for all heritage managers, owners, and citizens.
This is why this paper aims at reviewing the existing scientific literature in order to identify and describe policy measures for combatting graffiti vandalism on heritage sites in order to determine what works best and can be possibly applied in other contexts. The purpose is first to detect types of policy measures used and second to evaluate the effectiveness of the policies applied. This is expressed in the following research questions: 1. Which policy measures are applied in relation to graffiti vandalism on heritage sites? and 2. Which of the detected measures are most effective and can be transferred to other contexts? The motivation for the review study was driven by the fact that the graffiti vandalism is an omnipresent issue in many urban centers, and despite the policies introduced, the issue still remains. The environment the authors live in is greatly affected by the graffiti vandalism, and the authors initiated the research to offer a scientific contribution for policy-makers be taken into account while introducing further anti-graffiti measures. It is all part of a larger project the authors work on, which focuses on different aspects of sustainability for regional development, heritage sites being an important part of such development.

2. Materials and Methods

In order to detect measures used by public policies related to graffiti vandalism and to assess their effectiveness, a systematic review of the academic literature was performed in April–May 2024. The geographical setting of the research was global, as we wanted to review any type of effective anti-graffiti policy on heritage sites to be provided with material for further study in terms of its application in other contexts. For that purpose, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol has been used as a usual method for reporting the systematic review [11]. The focus of the review was articles and book chapters in English, present in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases until May 2024. A Boolean search for the terms (‘vandalism’* OR graffiti’*) AND (’heritage’* OR ‘policy’*) was carried out. Graffiti vandalism is a larger concept, which was narrowed down to graffiti vandalism at heritage buildings/sites, as it is the focus of the research. Generic lines of inquiry for this reason included “heritage” as one category as well as “policy”, as the interest was on finding and analyzing the effectiveness of different public measures in the fight against graffiti vandalism. Records that treated graffiti or vandalism at heritage sites but in different contexts (e.g., graffiti preservation, graffiti culture, graffiti as heritage, graffiti narratives, etc.) were not included in the analysis, as they were found out of the research scope.
The WoS search yielded 624 results, and Scopus produced 738, a total of 1362 results. After initial screening, based on their title or abstract relevant to the topic, 128 articles remained. The 128 selected articles indicated through their titles or abstracts that they were relevant to the topic of our study. Of those 128 articles, there were 15 duplicate articles, and 13 were in foreign languages: 7 in Spanish, 2 in Portuguese, 2 in Russian, and 1 each in Polish and Hungarian; thus 28 of them were excluded. Through further analysis and reading, it was determined that 76 articles did not align with the research objective defined in the introduction. These mainly consisted of articles addressing examples of graffiti just as street art, the technical aspects of graffiti removal, solutions to the problem of overtourism and its related vandalism, risk assessments of cultural heritage, and articles focused on restoration education, among others. Articles that deal with the overtourism issue and mention graffiti damage on heritage sites caused by tourists were, however, included. The final number of articles analyzed was 24.
Therefore, the remaining consulted literature includes articles addressing the issue of graffiti and vandalism on heritage sites, which encompass popular tourist attractions, local heritage sites, UNESCO-protected areas, and other relevant sites within the scope of this study. The PRISMA analysis yielded a relatively small amount of material on the observed topic. Therefore, after consulting the research articles and book chapters, additional research was conducted regarding specific anti-vandalism policies implemented by the local authorities of 8 cities: New York, Toronto, Stockholm, Bogotá, Bunbury, Wellington, Melbourne, and Barcelona. The sources we consulted included municipal regulations, reports and official statements, policy documents, as well as articles dealing with anti-graffiti vandalism measures, which contained some of the practices we mention.
The process of the selection of the papers is presented in the following PRISMA diagram below (Figure 1), while the final list of analyzed papers is provided in Table 1.

3. Results

Through the analysis, we determined that measures and policies to tackle graffiti vandalism on cultural heritage sites can logically be divided into proactive and reactive ones. The sources we consulted, with the exception of some like [12,13], mostly do not explicitly categorize these measures and policies, but mention them individually or together. Based on that, we have classified them as follows:
  • Proactive measures: Legislation, Education and Public Awareness Raising, Data Gathering and Monitoring, Heritage Management, Legal Art Sites;
  • Reactive measures: Criminal Sanctions, Graffiti Removal, and Damage Repair.
Certain measures overlap and may be present in multiple anti-vandalism strategies but are considered from different perspectives. Below, we provide a detailed elaboration of each measure.

3.1. Proactive Measures and Policies

Proactive measures aim at prevention before the undesired act occurs. They are much more cost-effective than reactive measures like damage repair. Prevention is particularly important in the protection of cultural heritage, which holds immeasurable value, with the goal of preserving it and passing it to future generations [14].

3.1.1. Legislation

The first step in graffiti and vandalism fighting is proper legislation. Criminal law and enforcement often tend to focus on crimes in general and not to make distinctions between victimization targets. Vandalism on residential buildings is not the same as vandalism on the Colosseum, just as theft of a car is not the same as theft of a Rembrandt painting. Both are punishable, but the caused damage is not the same. Heritage crimes are usually treated like every other type of crime [15]. Still, criminal laws of some countries like Norway, Sweeden, and Finland have a sense of distinction for general vandalism and that done against cultural heritage. The legislation in Italy, for example, makes a very clear distinction between different types of criminal offenses against cultural heritage. Article 518 of the Penal Code—Destruction, Dispersion, Deterioration, Disfiguring, Soiling, and Illicit Use of Cultural Property—imposes severe penalties for any form of destruction, disfigurement, or soiling of cultural heritage, as well as of landscapes. Moreover, penalties are also prescribed for owners who commit such offenses against their own property [16]. German criminal law contains rules about damaging or destruction of objects dedicated to worship (like churches), public monuments, natural monuments, tombs, etc. Austrian law deals with the vandalism of objects that have scientific, folkloric, or artistic historical value. Poland has special sanctions for crimes against property of cultural importance [15]. In this sense, strict laws that specifically aim at punishing vandalism, especially against cultural heritage, have elements of proactivity because they can deter potential perpetrators from committing the crime. Usual sanctions are various, from jail, mandatory community service, fines to drivers’ license suspension. Parents of juvenile offenders are sometimes punished with parental fines. One of the legislation measures combating graffiti vandalism is restrictions on the sale and possession of graffiti materials (e.g., aerosol sprays, brushes, markers, etc.). Some authors argue that these measures are not effective because of overcrowded jails, the high number of juvenile offenders, and the opinion that graffiti vandalism is not a serious crime [3,13].

3.1.2. Education and Public Awareness Raising

Education and Public Awareness Raising are measures aimed at educating and informing the public about the importance of heritage and the negative impacts of graffiti and every other type of vandalism, as well as possible criminal sanctions against offenders. The sources consulted usually deal with the problem of tourist vandalism and their education but are useful in the general context of the fight against graffiti vandalism [17,18,19]. Youth education programs about graffiti crimes and related consequences are also proposed [13]. This measure includes formal education like structured programs in schools or colleges, and informal education like awareness raising campaigns and programs for specific groups like graffiti writers and street artists, tourists, local communities, youth, etc. Many incidental or unintentional heritage-related crimes can be addressed through effective education and awareness raising programs [14]. Educating the public is crucial because it addresses the root cause of vandalism—lack of understanding and appreciation of cultural heritage. By raising awareness, measure will help to prevent graffiti vandalism before it occurs, reducing the need for reactive measures like punitive actions and high restoration and conservation costs. Additionally, awareness aims to ensure that vandals understand that their actions are not tolerated and that they face a significant risk of being detected and apprehended [20]. According to [20], the usual approach in education strategy that is integrated into municipal graffiti management plans is described as just instructing people that graffiti is something “wrong”. Education and Public Awareness Raising also implies community involvement and instructing stakeholders on strategies to discourage vandals from engaging in graffiti and effective methods for removing graffiti from their properties. In the proposed anti-graffiti Draft Strategy [20], the need for educating three target groups is recognized: (1) broad community; (2) the city councils; and (3) graffiti writers/street artist. This is highlighted by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice, which emphasizes that school-based education on the negative consequences of graffiti vandalism, both moral and legal, as well as encouraging the reporting of observed graffiti, are effective preventive strategies [19,20]. One of the proposed measures is the placement of signs and other interpretation content that indicate the moral and legal consequences of vandalism [19].
Some identified measures include education about the importance of preservation of the cultural heritage in schools. Younger generations are generally less engaged and interested in local culture; therefore, it has been proposed to incorporate cultural heritage education into both school and university curricula. Society needs to raise awareness of its cultural heritage and support effective ways to preserve it [21]. This is particularly important in places frequently visited by tourists (museums, cultural heritage sites, national parks, protected areas, and similar locations). Through education, for instance, tourists become aware that they are in important cultural heritage sites and are subject to certain behavioral norms [18].
It should be emphasized that there is no completely successful reach of this measure, because there are groups (subcultural, political, or even military groups) or individuals who intentionally aim to destroy or violate cultural heritage [22]. The issue of the motives of vandalism perpetrators is in the next section.

3.1.3. Data Gathering

A significant problem in researching graffiti vandalism is the lack of reliable data, as there is no consistent recording of vandalism incidents. The problem is important both for scientific research and prevention-related monitoring and data gathering. In some cases, vandalism as a criminal offense is not properly recognized, or it occurs in locations that are not monitored, leaving law enforcement or owners unaware of the undesirable act. Data gathering on vandalism is especially important for areas where cultural heritage sites are located and where the most people circulate, which is usually in old city centers. Or, as earlier mentioned, there is no legislative distinction between sole property damage and a heritage crime. Many of the vandalism-related crimes occur at some specific spots and routes, therefore making a crime “hot spot”. Mapping these hot spots through data gathering and thus recognizing crime patterns could help law enforcement and the government to better deal with the repeated victimization of the cultural heritage [14].
When dealing with the data gathering, a special interest should be placed on the content and possible motivation [23] of the offender and graffiti groups [3]. A careful analysis of illegal graffiti can provide information about the motivation of the perpetrator, and with the knowledge of the motivation, special measures can be created that address the identified motivation [19]. In the research and interpretation of motives, it is essential to adopt a holistic and multidisciplinary approach in order to establish more effective protective measures and conservation efforts [24]. Various motivations for graffiti vandalism have been recorded, for example, tourists can leave traces of their visit unintentionally, but graffiti can also be a reaction of tourists to the local population opposing tourism and trying to reduce it [25]. In general, data collection should be the joint responsibility of the city police, managers of heritage sites, and city authorities. An example of such joint performance in data collection is Melbourne [26], which is further analyzed in Section 4.
The above measures aim to reduce opportunities for graffiti vandalism. They are particularly important for preventing vandalism on cultural heritage sites, whose restoration is costly and damage may be difficult to repair. It is essential to shift from reactive to proactive methods in combating graffiti vandalism and to tailor the measures to the specific needs of a particular site targeted by vandalism. Preventive techniques are generally not universal; in some situations, they are appropriate, while in others, they may not be particularly effective. This underscores the importance of analyzing a specific cultural heritage site and proposing measures based on its identified characteristics [14]. Prevention strategies include measures that directly reduce the opportunities for graffiti vandalism. Crime is caused by opportunity, and by limiting opportunities, crime is reduced. These range from graffiti data gathering, environmental design changes that deter criminal behavior, to the establishment of controlled zones where monitoring is strict. In this context, one of the proposed measures is the identification of routes or hot spots where vandalism frequently occurs. Crime hot spots were recognized as early as the late 1980s and have become a useful tool in crime prevention initiatives. Despite the general awareness among law enforcement of areas where crime occurs, mapping and identifying crime patterns, as well as labeling high-risk locations, can help prevent and reduce graffiti vandalism [14].

3.1.4. Heritage Management

To survive in an increasingly globalizing world, cultural heritage needs proper management. Many world-famous heritage sites are being violated [19]. Heritage management and environmental design can reduce opportunities for potential perpetrators and prevent damage. Management of heritage sites should be developed in a way that takes into account the specific problems and challenges of cultural heritage and protected areas to optimize their sustainability and resilience [21]. For example, damage caused by graffiti vandalism is just one of the dangers for heritage; others can be decay caused by time, environmental impact, or as a consequence of overtourism. In order to prevent damage due to overtourism, some heritage sites developed restrictions [25] or measures like replicas of the cultural sites [27,28]. The most important step for heritage management is to determine what poses the most severe threat for a specific heritage site [25], to set up a ways to physically protect them, and to point out the importance of respecting value and boundaries [25]. Hence, it should be designed in a diverse way to address and prevent different challenges [17]. Sources point out that heritage management needs the combined competences of cultural heritage custodians and experts in management and organization. Also, there is a need for mutual understanding and cooperation between heritage stakeholders and the community [21]. Management also includes physical barriers that make access to heritage sites difficult, and application of the protective layer making graffiti removal easier [3,13].
Crime prevention and environmental design focus on how the interaction and connection between people and their surroundings can reduce crime and vandalism. Specific measures promote a sense of ownership and surveillance over properties, thereby preventing crime [14]. In this sense, some of the proposed measures are patrol monitoring and surveillance, followed by fast police response. To be comprehensive, measures must be accompanied by specialized fast-response task forces, for example, a police unit designed to tackle graffiti crimes [3,13].
This is particularly important in the context of the broken windows theory, which explains that places, sites, and buildings that exhibit visible signs of abandonment, criminal activity, and antisocial behavior tend to attract even more potential offenders, all leading to the proliferation of vandalism [29]. Public participation and a sense of involvement can greatly supplement this measure. An involved public could encourage uninvolved individuals to respect and promote rules and can give feedback on policies and management [30,31]. San Francisco, in that manner, created a citizen volunteer program where groups were educated, equipped with graffiti removal tools, and sent to remove graffiti. That program empowered local community and sent a message that vandalism will not be tolerated because locals are engaged in maintaining order [12].
Awareness of the site’s surveillance and the potential for rapid intervention act as a deterrent to potential offenders. For example, in 2012, the local authority of Cheshire West and Chester, UK, established a partnership with the police and the fire service to combat cultural vandalism. ‘Heritage Watch’ was introduced and modeled after ‘Neighborhood Watch’. It involved not only the institutions but also property owners, residents, managers, and visitors, who collaboratively monitored the state of cultural heritage sites and communicated with each other. This concept of combating graffiti and vandalism in general facilitates and expedites the intervention of relevant services and provides legitimacy to further steps in the fight against vandalism [14]. In line with this, the Alliance to Reduce Heritage Crime (ARCH) was established in 2011, bringing together all interested stakeholders. ARCH developed a broad network and volunteers engaged in supporting, monitoring, repairing, and protecting cultural heritage sites [14].

3.1.5. Legal Art Sites as a Proactive Measure

Street art exhibitions are modern day phenomena, which were hosted even by prominent galleries around the world. It is a complex area where art, market, tourism, and property issues meet. Now, that kind of art makes a lucrative business [32]. Basically, graffiti expresses people’s desire to leave a mark of presence [19]. Legal art sites for street artists and visitors/tourists can successfully channel the desire to leave a personal mark or work of art. If it were illegal, it would constitute an act of vandalism. In this case, it would be controlled and legal expression or art. Such legal places represent a form of proactive measure that permits personal expressions but makes it constructive. For instance, at certain tourist sites, visitors often feel the need to leave a mark of their visit in the form of stickers, tags, graffiti, or carvings, which damage the surface of the heritage site. Not every potential tourist or “street artist” will be satisfied with that kind of controlled opportunity for expression, depending on their motives, but surely will make some positive changes and reduce the amount of graffiti vandalism. Some reports notice some positive changes after applying this measure [18], and in some cases, graffiti, i.e., street art, is used for vandalism prevention [33]. Legal Street art, despite still being slippery terrain, can greatly contribute to the city’s culture, develop artistic talents, increase sense of ownership and value of site, and even attract visitors eager for this type of art [3,20]. The identification of urban districts affected by graffiti vandalism can serve as a basis for creating new policies and regulations, such as zero-tolerance zones and zones where street art is permitted [34]. Another proposed measure is the introduction of visitor books, for example in museums and protected cultural heritage sites, as an alternative method for leaving one’s mark, sharing experiences and emotions, and informing others about them [19].

3.2. Reactive Measures

Reactive measures refer to actions that take place when the violation has already been committed. Their main goal is to repair the damage. Measures of a reactive nature do not fundamentally prevent the problem of graffiti vandalism but deal with it once it has already been committed and damage has been made.

3.2.1. Criminal Sanctions

As we previously noted, legislation often does not distinguish between crimes against heritage sites and vandalism on other sites. Graffiti vandalism is thus frequently classified just as the destruction of private or public property. Punishing offenders under criminal law is both a proactive and a reactive measure. We have already outlined its proactive aspect. In reactive terms, sanctions and punishment are effective in preventing the recurrence of such acts. Additionally, there is a general consensus that offenders should pay reparations for the damage, and in some cases, are even required to repair caused damage, thus reducing the costs. Some municipalities issued specific fluorescent vests for graffiti vandals repairing caused damage [3,15].

3.2.2. Graffiti Removal and Damage Repair

One of the challenges that may arise in the context of graffiti removal, when it is an act of vandalism, is its potential artistic value. For example, graffiti created by Banksy, which are often illegal and considered vandalism, are simultaneously highly valued and represent significant material and artistic worth [32]. Nevertheless, graffiti removal and repair remains an effective reactive measure. In this context, it is important to note that certain municipalities impose penalties on property owners who fail to remove graffiti in time and thus create disorder [30,35,36].

4. Good Practice Examples

Previously, we conducted an analysis of articles using the PRISMA protocol. However, since the number of articles and specific measures within them is relatively small, we expanded the analysis to include official city measures and policies aimed at combating graffiti. We included New York, Toronto, Stockholm, Bogotá, Bunbury, Wellington, Melbourne, and Barcelona. These cities were mentioned in articles and sources as significant in the context of graffiti vandalism, with some of them described in [37] as examples of best practices in graffiti management. For example, New York was the first city where graffiti vandalism and related hip-hop culture occurred, gained significant public attention, and spread around the globe. Toronto was included for its extensive graffiti management programs. Stockholm was chosen as a city that reflects the Scandinavian “welfare state” model. Bogotá is a unique case that completely changed its approach to graffiti following a murder incident linked to graffiti. The sources were available online. According to [37], city authorities are increasingly abandoning reactive measures and zero-tolerance concepts towards graffiti, opting instead for a strategic approach to graffiti management with proactive measures. Communities tend to be tolerant of graffiti if it contributes positively to the visual landscape, and in some areas, it is even regarded as street art. Below, we present examples of graffiti management practices [37].

4.1. New York

The City of New York until 2023 had an Anti-Graffiti Task Force as a key body in the fight against graffiti vandalism. The Task Force was designed to coordinate law enforcement, propose new legislation, initiate the development of prevention and removal mechanisms for graffiti, and inform the public about the negative consequences of graffiti vandalism. Established within the Mayor’s Office, the Task Force included members from the police, fire department, cultural heritage management institutions, housing authorities, and related agencies. This body implemented the comprehensive anti-graffiti program, which encompassed prevention, education, law enforcement, monitoring, graffiti removal, and technical support for graffiti removal. Graffiti in New York does not constitute a legal violation if there is official permission for graffiti to be created [38]. Today, the City-Wide Vandals Task Force manages graffiti control in New York. The city government also provides financial rewards for individuals who report acts of graffiti vandalism in case that the information leads to the sanctioning of the perpetrator [39].

4.2. Toronto

The City of Toronto developed the Graffiti Management Plan in 2013; distinguishing between graffiti as street art and graffiti vandalism, the Plan recognized that it would not be feasible to eradicate graffiti and “artists” entirely. The city authorities adopted a different approach. In this context, graffiti and murals are defined within the law as commissioned or authorized projects that contribute to the aesthetics of the surfaces and environments in which they are located. If they are not approved by the relevant authorities, they are classified as vandalism [40]. As an additional measure to combat graffiti vandalism, the Plan launched programs such as StreetARToronto (StART), the StART Underpass Program (StARTUP), and Outside the Box. StART provides support to property owners (both public and private) who are victims of graffiti vandalism by supplying resources for graffiti removal and mural installation. All public services and guidelines concerning graffiti and street art are published on the City of Toronto’s website [41]. Additionally, this program maintains contact with street artists and collaborates with them on street art projects. The StARTUP program offers opportunities for street artists to legally paint public surfaces. Outside the Box is a program aimed at decorating the city’s traffic signal boxes [37]. Toronto exemplifies an effective combination of reactive and proactive measures in the fight against vandalism, and the Plan has even received recognition from the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC) [42]. The proactive nature of Toronto’s graffiti management is further demonstrated by the requirement that buildings constructed on public land must allocate 50% of their walls for street art expression [37].

4.3. Stockholm

Stockholm previously adhered to a zero-tolerance policy toward graffiti. Many surfaces and programs that had previously supported street art were discontinued. However, this policy faced sharp criticism for stifling artistic expression. Later, with a change in government and under public pressure, the zero-tolerance approach was abolished, transforming Stockholm into the city with the largest number of legal graffiti spaces in Europe [37].

4.4. Bogotá

A similar scenario occurred in the Colombian capital of Bogotá, where an initial zero-tolerance stance evolved into the decriminalization and recognition of graffiti as a form of artistic and cultural expression, turning graffiti into a professional occupation. Nonetheless, restrictions remain in place for unauthorized graffiti on cultural heritage sites, monuments, and private property without the owner’s consent [37]. Bogotá has established a participatory policymaking body, the Committee for the Responsible Practice of Graffiti. The committee brings together city authorities, police, and street artists, who work collaboratively to develop decisions and guidelines for responsible graffiti practices [31].

4.5. Bunbury

The City of Bunbury, Australia, bases its anti-graffiti policy on four measures: damage repair and graffiti removal, rewarding information, community education, and providing activities for young people that enable legal street art. The graffiti removal policy consists of Priority 1, which deals with offensive or racist graffiti, which will be removed within 12 h, and Priority 2, which deals with all other graffiti, which will be removed within 48 h. An interesting aspect of the education segment is the promotion of removing existing graffiti, educational programs in schools about the harmful effects of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, informing the public about ways to reduce the potential for unwanted graffiti, and maintaining communication with retail outlets [43].

4.6. Wellington

Wellington, New Zealand, has defined four key components in its plan to combat graffiti vandalism. The first is municipal leadership, which coordinates activities, launches initiatives, and builds partnerships with the community. Next are prevention measures, which include education, restrictions on the sale of graffiti-related equipment, and the implementation of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. This is followed by the measure of prompt graffiti removal, as quick action facilitates removal and prevents further proliferation of graffiti. Finally, enforcement measures rely on the collaboration of key stakeholders, monitoring, and the use of information obtained through the StopTags [44] program, along with the application of legal measures to identify and penalize offenders [45].

4.7. Melbourne

In 2021, Melbourne, Australia, adopted a new Graffiti Management Policy. The policy defines graffiti, vandalism, and street art as the placement of any form of graffiti without the owner’s permission. Prevention is recognized as the policy’s most important measure. The prevention plan is supported by urban planning and infrastructure that reduces opportunities for vandalism, improved lighting and surveillance, education and mentoring programs, stakeholder networking, as well as prompt graffiti removal to prevent the emergence of new ones. The second measure is removal, which offers comprehensive assistance for graffiti removal available to residents and business owners. Monitoring is emphasized to ensure new graffiti is detected and removed as quickly as possible. Additionally, cultural heritage sites are acknowledged, where graffiti is removed using specialized techniques, and the application of anti-graffiti protective coatings is foreseen. The enforcement of criminal law is also included, stating that, in addition to penalties, the city authorities will cooperate with the police, providing information on graffiti hot spots, graffiti tag IDs, graffiti photographs, and the costs of removal. The final measure emphasizes extensive collaboration between public and private organizations responsible for buildings and infrastructure to ensure that anti-graffiti efforts are consistent and successful [26].

4.8. Barcelona

Barcelona represents a complex example of the official stance toward graffiti and the interaction between artists, the public, and authorities. Initially, graffiti and accompanying vandalism were only mildly sanctioned, with greater attention focused on leveraging the aesthetic value of graffiti, particularly as a new form of street art. This approach led to the creation of the first street art spaces, establishing Barcelona as a “graffiti capital” that attracted artists abandoning cities with zero-tolerance policies. Consequently, there was a significant rise in Barcelona’s graffiti activity, which began to violate private property. This resulted in growing public opposition to graffiti, even toward initiatives like CamelArte, which sought to promote urban art. In response, 2006 saw the enactment of laws that significantly restricted graffiti, permitting it only with the explicit approval of the city council. The council became the authority responsible for evaluating the artistic value of graffiti, including on private property. Harsh fines and a zero-tolerance policy were introduced. While the city council attempted to address vandalism and enable artistic expression, key street art stakeholders were excluded from public discussions. These restrictions and penalties led to an even greater proliferation of vandalism and tagging while diminishing the quality of street art. Thus, the zero-tolerance policy failed to achieve its objectives. Street artists, who considered themselves creators of urban art rather than vandals, sought to launch various artistic programs, but city authorities were generally unsupportive of any of these efforts. It was not until the late 2000s that changes began to take place, driven by the rapid rise in the popularity of this relatively new art form. Advertising campaigns started altering public perceptions of graffiti art, dissociating it from vandalism. Given the high costs of graffiti removal and the shifting public perception, the city council began to modify its policies, allowing artistic expression in designated places. In 2014, the Ús Barcelona festival was held, bringing together many street artists. Since 2015, the approach to urban art has shifted toward a proactive cultural policy, positioning street art as a tool for social regeneration [46]. A tabular presentation of reviewed anti-graffiti measures follows in Table 2.

5. Discussion

Seven identified measures that are applied in relation to graffiti vandalism on heritage sites are legislation, education and public awareness raising, data gathering, heritage management, legal art sites, criminal sanctions, and graffiti removal and damage repair. As we noted, sources indicate that data collection and monitoring of graffiti vandalism are, in most cases, either nonexistent or insufficiently structured. As a result, we are unable to provide a more precise evaluation of the effectiveness of specific anti-graffiti measures. Without dedicated research that focuses on the concrete effects of individual measures, it is not possible to rank them by effectiveness. However, based on some of the examples we have presented, we observe that these measures tend to be implemented collectively and function complementarily with a cumulative effect. Therefore, we can conclude that the measures have maximum impact when implemented together. Among the various anti-graffiti measures, it is evident that most are proactive in nature, involving good legislation, education, and prevention aimed at deterring offenders from potential crimes. Also, the zero-tolerance policy is being abandoned, as graffiti is increasingly recognized as art. The crucial issue is the regulation of graffiti, which, through the law and rules, can successfully be excluded from vandalism.
Graffiti vandalism as a persistent challenge is tackled by various measures, both proactive and reactive, and their efficiency is varied. Among measures, a fast response removing graffiti, as a reactive measure, can be effective in some areas, but such measures can result in vandals relocating their activities to different, less monitored areas, merely redistributing the problem rather than addressing it. This approach aligns with the principles of the broken windows theory [3]. Research studies highlight the minimal efficacy of measures aimed at restricting the legal sale and possession of graffiti materials, such as spray paints and markers, because they can simply be obtained illegally [3,13]. While some of the analyzed studies suggest that legal sites for street art are more effective than sanctions, it is the cumulative approach, which promises the best efficiency. Legal street art sites provide a controlled environment for artistic expression, channeling creativity. These sites often attract skilled and aspiring artists, contributing to the development of local talent and cultural vibrancy [18,19]. However, some evidence from practice shows that despite legal art sites, graffiti vandalism is still present in other locations, which may suggest that it depends on the context.
A systematized visual representation of the effectiveness of the analyzed measures is offered in Table 3.
From the table above, we can see that proactive measures and policies are those aimed at long-term results. Their success depends on the cooperation of all stakeholders, including the government, local communities, and managers of cultural heritage sites. However, they often require long-term and continuous application, and may require significant financial resources and coordination. Reactive measures, on the other hand, bring faster responses to the occurrence of graffiti vandalism but do not solve the root causes of the problem—lack of awareness about the importance of heritage, which can only be addressed through proactive measures such as education. It can be assumed that the best results are brought by a combination of all measures. Finally, systematic evaluation and adaptation based on the results can ensure long-term effectiveness.
Although having some limitations, this article can serve as a reference point for further research on graffiti vandalism of cultural heritage sites. The limitation is seen in the analysis of anti-graffiti policies in a limited number of public policies for specific cities, which were available online in the English language; thus, future research may expand the analysis on policy documents available in other languages. Alongside, the search for additional scientific articles may be done to expand the review through other available scientific databases. Despite that, by compiling all the available research articles on the topic of graffiti vandalism policies on heritage sites alongside available resources on the related public policies in English, this article brings valuable knowledge on the existing policy measures as well as on their effectiveness. In this way, it can be of interest not only for researchers but also for heritage stakeholders and managers, saving their time in proposing implementation of the respective anti-graffiti policies. Further on, although graffiti on heritage sites is a worldwide problem conservators, managers, and citizens have to deal with, it is not largely discussed. This is why this article can serve as a reference point, since it summarizes what has been done so far and delivers conclusions on the related measures’ effectiveness.
Regarding future research, there are several directions in which this topic could develop. The first area could be research on the effectiveness of specific anti-graffiti measures and policies, focusing on the amount of vandalism before and after the introduction of structured interventions. Also, future research could analyze the economics of graffiti vandalism. This is a plausible topic, as it has been repeatedly emphasized that graffiti removal is extremely costly, especially when it involves cultural heritage. This would possibly also influence and/or direct public measures on graffiti vandalism. Given the growing influence of smart technologies, one potential research direction could involve the integration of smart technology and digital platforms in the prevention of and rapid response to vandalism. All these topics were more or less addressed in the consulted literature and our work, either directly or indirectly related to graffiti vandalism. However, due to limitations, a detailed exploration of these aspects was beyond the scope of this work.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.A.J.; methodology, D.A.J.; validation, M.R.; formal analysis, M.R.; investigation, M.R.; resources, M.R.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.; writing—review and editing, D.A.J.; visualization, M.R. and D.A.J.; supervision, D.A.J.; project administration, D.A.J.; funding acquisition, D.A.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth of the Republic of Croatia through the project BORE—Essence and Colours of Sustainable Regional Development in the Republic of Croatia and Center for Sustainable Development Through Culture. This funding was provided under the Program Agreement (Class: 643-02/23-01/00016, Reg. No.: 533-03-23-0002, dated 8 December 2023) between the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth and the Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO), Zagreb, Croatia. The specific allocation for this project was outlined in the Decision on Allocation of Financial Resources (IRMO, Class: 402-03/23-01/18, Reg. No.: 251-768-08-23-5, dated 11 December 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Definition of GRAFFITI. Available online: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graffiti (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  2. Merrill, S. Keeping it real? Subcultural graffiti, street art, heritage and authenticity. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2015, 21, 369–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Thompson, K.; Offler, N.; Hirsch, L.; Every, D.; Thomas, M.J.; Dawson, D. From broken windows to a renovated research agenda: A review of the literature on vandalism and graffiti in the rail industry. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pr. 2012, 46, 1280–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cultural Heritage. Available online: https://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/cultural-heritage (accessed on 18 December 2024).
  5. Donnell, N.; Anderson, T. Zagreb Visitor Survey 2017/18. 2018. Available online: https://www.infozagreb.hr/documents/b2b/STRZagrebVisitorSurvey.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  6. Reducing Graffiti Vandalism|The NSMC. Available online: https://www.thensmc.com/resources/showcase/reducing-graffiti-vandalism (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  7. The Cost and Impact of Graffiti Removal in the UK—See Brilliance Blog. Available online: https://www.seebrilliance.com/vandalism-or-art-the-cost-and-impact-of-graffiti-removal-in-the-uk/ (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  8. Eser, A. Graffiti Statistics: Insights into the Multibillion-Dollar Global Street Art Market. 2024. worldmetrics.org. Available online: https://worldmetrics.org/graffiti-statistics/ (accessed on 26 September 2024).
  9. GraffitiResistance_050615.pdf. Available online: https://www.alpolic-americas.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GraffitiResistance_050615.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  10. GraffitiVandalismAuditReport-WebVersion.pdf. Available online: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/documents/GraffitiVandalismAuditReport-WebVersion.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  11. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marche, G. Local democracy and public spaces in contest: Graffiti in San Francisco. In Democracy, Participation and Contestation; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ross, J.I. How major urban centers in the United States respond to graffiti/street art. In Routledge Handbook of Graffiti and Street Art; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grove, L. Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime. Public Archaeol. 2013, 12, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jong, A.M.D.; Iyer, A.; Yates, D. Heritage and Criminal Sanctions. In The Routledge Handbook of Heritage and the Law, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2024; pp. 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Criminal Offences Against Cultural Heritage Within the Italian Legal Framework After Law 9 March 2022, n. 22. Available online: https://publicatt.unicatt.it/retrieve/25071be3-4000-4e62-bb7e-a0eaa63f4424/CulturalHeritageCriminalLaw_Italy_2022%285%29.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2024).
  17. AlMasri, R.; Ababneh, A. Heritage Management: Analytical Study of Tourism Impacts on the Archaeological Site of Umm Qais—Jordan. Heritage 2021, 4, 2449–2469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chylińska, D.; Kosmala, G. The ‘I was here’ syndrome in tourism: The case of Poland. Quaest. Geogr. 2023, 42, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mustafa, M.H.; Al-Rousan, R.M.; Bala’awi, F.A. They Were Here: Graffiti by Tourists in the Ancient City of Jerash, Jordan. J. East. Mediterr. Archaeol. Herit. Stud. 2022, 10, 162–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Young, A. Negotiated consent or zero tolerance? Responding to graffiti and street art in Melbourne. City 2010, 14, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mekonnen, H.; Bires, Z.; Berhanu, K. Practices and challenges of cultural heritage conservation in historical and religious heritage sites: Evidence from North Shoa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Herit. Sci. 2022, 10, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Merrill, S.O.C. Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalism as Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege? Time Mind 2011, 4, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Petronela, S.-U.; Sandu, I.; Stratulat, L. The conscious deterioration and degradation of the cultural heritage. Int. J. Conserv. Sci. 2017, 8, 81–88. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chatzigiannis, D. Vandalism of Cultural Heritage: Thoughts Preceding Conservation Interventions. Change Over Time 2015, 5, 120–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hugo, N.C. Overtourism at Heritage and Cultural Sites. In Overtourism; Séraphin, H., Gladkikh, T., Thanh, T.V., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Graffiti-Management-Policy.pdf. Available online: https://mvga-prod-files.s3.ap-southeast-4.amazonaws.com/public/2024-05/graffiti-management-policy.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  27. Frey, B.S.; Briviba, A. Revived Originals—A proposal to deal with cultural overtourism. Tour. Econ. 2021, 27, 1221–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Frey, B.S.; Briviba, A. A policy proposal to deal with excessive cultural tourism. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2021, 29, 601–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yates, D.; Bērziņa, D.; Wright, A. Protecting a Broken Window: Vandalism and Security at Rural Rock Art Sites. Prof. Geogr. 2022, 74, 384–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Denis, J.; Pontille, D. Maintenance epistemology and public order: Removing graffiti in Paris. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2021, 51, 233–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. DeShazo, J.L. Going beyond the usual suspects: Engaging street artists in policy design and implementation in Bogotá. Policy Des. Pr. 2022, 5, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Flessas, T.; Mulcahy, L. Limiting Law: Art in the Street and Street in the Art. Law Cult. Humanit. 2018, 14, 219–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vanderveen, G.; van Eijk, G. Criminal but Beautiful: A Study on Graffiti and the Role of Value Judgments and Context in Perceiving Disorder. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 2016, 22, 107–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alzate, J.R.; Tabares, M.S.; Vallejo, P. Graffiti and government in smart cities: A Deep Learning approach applied to Medellín City, Colombia. In International Conference on Data Science, E-learning and Information Systems 2021; ACM: Ma’an, Jordan, 2021; pp. 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shobe, H.; Banis, D. Zero graffiti for a beautiful city: The cultural politics of urban space in San Francisco. Urban Geogr. 2014, 35, 586–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shobe, H.; Conklin, T. Geographies of Graffiti Abatement: Zero Tolerance in Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. Prof. Geogr. 2018, 70, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huntington, D. Sustainable Graffiti Management Solutions for Public Areas. SAUC Str. Art Urban Creat. 2018, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Combating_Graffiti.pdf. Available online: https://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/anti_graffiti/Combating_Graffiti.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  39. About the Task Force. Available online: https://www.nyc.gov/html/nograffiti/html/aboutforce.html (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  40. Toronto Municipal Code. Available online: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_485.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  41. City of Toronto. “Graffiti Management”, City of Toronto. Available online: https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/enhancing-our-streets-and-public-realm/graffiti-management/ (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  42. St. Lawrence Market BIA—City of Toronto’s Plan for Managing Graffiti Receives National Award. Available online: https://www.stlawrencemarketbia.ca/index.php/toronto-news/1047-city-of-toronto-s-plan-for-managing-graffiti-receives-national-award (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  43. Vandalism-Graffiti-Management-Council-Policy.pdf. Available online: https://cdn.bunbury.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Vandalism-Graffiti-Management-Council-Policy.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  44. Community/StopTagsGraffiti (MapServer). Available online: https://gis.wcc.govt.nz/arcgis/rest/services/Community/StopTagsGraffiti/MapServer (accessed on 10 October 2024).
  45. Wellington City Council. Graffiti Vandalism Management Plan. Available online: https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/your-council/plans-policies-and-bylaws/plans-and-policies/a-to-z/graffitimanagement/files/graffiti-vandalism-management-plan.pdf?la=en&hash=F668E35487D409FDE3C7C92B5E7D7CDD4D2A7BBF (accessed on 5 October 2024).
  46. Barcelona and Urban Art, an Achievable Entente|Barcelona Metròpolis. Available online: https://www.barcelona.cat/bcnmetropolis/2007-2017/en/calaixera/reports/barcelona-i-lart-urba-lentesa-possible/ (accessed on 22 November 2024).
Figure 1. The PRISMA diagram.
Figure 1. The PRISMA diagram.
Heritage 08 00018 g001
Table 1. List of the included articles.
Table 1. List of the included articles.
Authors/YearTitle
A.M.D. Jong, A. Iyer, D. Yates 2024Heritage and Criminal Sanctions
D. Chylińska, G. Kosmala 2023The ‘I was Here’ Syndrome in Tourism: The Case of Poland
J.L. DeShazo 2022Going beyond the usual suspects: engaging street artists in policy design and implementation in Bogotá
M.H. Mustafa, R.M. Al-Rousan, F.A. Bala’awi 2022They Were Here: Graffiti by Tourists in the Ancient City of Jerash, Jordan
H. Mekonnen, Z. Bires, K. Berhanu 2022Practices and challenges of cultural heritage conservation in historical and religious heritage sites: evidence from North Shoa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
D. Yates, D. Bērziņa, A. Wright 2022Protecting a Broken Window: Vandalism and Security at Rural Rock Art Sites
J.R. Alzate, M.S. Tabares, P. Vallejo 2021Graffiti and government in smart cities: a Deep Learning approach applied to Medellín City, Colombia
J. Denis and D. Pontille 2021Maintenance epistemology and public order: Removing graffiti in Paris
B.S. Frey, A. Briviba, 2021Revived Originals—A proposal to deal with cultural overtourism
B.S. Frey, A. Briviba 2021A policy proposal to deal with excessive cultural tourism
R. AlMasri, A. Ababneh 2021Heritage Management: Analytical Study of Tourism Impacts on the Archaeological Site of Umm Qais—Jordan
N.C. Hugo 2020Overtourism at Heritage and Cultural Sites
T. Flessas, L. Mulcahy 2018Limiting Law: Art in the Street and Street in the Art
H. Shobe, T. Conklin 2018Geographies of Graffiti Abatement: Zero Tolerance in Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle
S.-U. Petronela, I. Sandu, L. Stratulat 2017The conscious deterioration and degradation of the cultural heritage
G. Vanderveen and G. van Eijk 2016Criminal but Beautiful: A Study on Graffiti and the Role of Value Judgments and Context in Perceiving Disorder
J.I. Ross 2016How major urban centers in the United States respond to graffiti/street art
D. Chatzigiannis 2015Vandalism of Cultural Heritage: Thoughts Preceding Conservation Interventions
G. Marche 2014Local democracy and public spaces in contest: Graffiti in San Fracisco
H. Shobe, D. Banis 2014Zero graffiti for a beautiful city: the cultural politics of urban space in San Francisco
L. Grove 2013“Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime”
K. Thompson, N. Offler, L. Hirsch, D. Every, M.J. Thomas, D. Dawson 2012From broken windows to a renovated research agenda: A review of the literature on vandalism and graffiti in the rail industry
S.O.C. Merrill 2011Graffiti at Heritage Places: Vandalism as Cultural Significance or Conservation Sacrilege
A. Young 2010Negotiated consent or zero tolerance? Responding to graffiti and street art in Melbourne
Table 2. Table presentation of anti-graffiti measures and policies.
Table 2. Table presentation of anti-graffiti measures and policies.
Type of Method
City/CountryProactiveReactive
New York, USA
-
The Anti-Graffiti Task Force develops prevention programs, educational campaigns in schools, and public awareness initiatives
-
Coordination involves police, fire departments, and housing authorities
-
The city rewards citizens for reporting graffiti, enhancing community involvement
-
The City-Wide Vandals Task Force enforces graffiti laws and coordinates removal
-
Rapid removal is prioritized, and financial rewards are offered for information leading to arrests
-
Legislation supports strict penalties for unauthorized graffiti
Toronto, Canada
-
StreetARToronto (StART) funds legal street art projects and
-
StARTUP program designates legal graffiti spaces in underpasses
-
The Outside the Box program transforms traffic signal boxes into art, and public buildings must allocate 50% of their walls to street art
-
The city supports property owners by offering resources for graffiti removal
-
Rapid response teams remove graffiti promptly to prevent further proliferation
Stockholm, Sweden
-
Stockholm moved away from zero tolerance and established numerous legal street art zones
-
Public spaces are designated for artistic expression, encouraging street artists to create sanctioned murals, fostering community-driven urban art
-
n/a
Bogotá, Colombia
-
Graffiti is promoted as a professional art form
-
Specific zones are designated for street art
-
Educational programs emphasize graffiti’s cultural significance
-
Unauthorized graffiti on cultural heritage sites, monuments, or private property is prohibited
-
Offenders face penalties, and graffiti is promptly removed if not in designated zones
Bunbury, Australia
-
Community education programs in schools teach the negative effects of graffiti vandalism
-
Legal street art activities provide outlets for youth creativity
-
Public communication campaigns inform citizens about how to prevent graffiti and maintain clean spaces
-
Graffiti removal follows a priority system: offensive or racist graffiti is removed within 12 h, while other graffiti is removed within 48 h
-
Community members are rewarded for information leading to offenders
Wellington, New Zealand
-
Municipal leadership implements educational initiatives and restricts the sale of spray paint and markers to minors
-
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles guide urban design to minimize graffiti opportunities
-
Prompt graffiti removal prevents further vandalism
-
The StopTags program tracks graffiti offenders, and legal penalties are applied
Melbourne, Australia
-
Urban planning reduces graffiti-prone areas by improving lighting, surveillance, and infrastructure
-
Educational programs and mentorships for youth promote legal artistic outlets
-
Community engagement encourages partnerships to prevent vandalism
-
Comprehensive graffiti removal services are provided to residents and businesses
-
The city collaborates with police to track graffiti hot spots, tag IDs, and removal costs; Strict penalties deter offenders
Barcelona, Spain
-
Barcelona designates graffiti spaces and hosts cultural festivals like Ús Barcelona to promote street art
-
Proactive cultural policies since 2015 support graffiti as a tool for social regeneration and urban revitalization
-
Initial zero-tolerance policies with heavy fines failed
-
Unauthorized graffiti is still removed, but policies have shifted toward cultural engagement
Table 3. Effectiveness of the analyzed measures.
Table 3. Effectiveness of the analyzed measures.
Type of MethodEffectiveness of Measures and Policies
AdvantagesDisadvantages
1. Proactive
1.1. Legislation
-
positive laws targeting vandalism against cultural heritage can deter potential perpetrators
-
potentially penalizing parents of juvenile offenders can encourage better supervision
-
raising perception of seriousness of graffiti vandalism, particularly against cultural heritage
-
legislation gaps between general graffiti vandalism and graffiti vandalism at cultural heritage sites
-
large number of juvenile offenders can complicate enforcement
1.2. Education and Public Awareness Raising
-
addresses root problem of vandalism
-
diverse target groups result in a broad reach
-
encouraging public to participate in preventing graffiti vandalism
-
focus on youth and shaping attitudes at the formative stage
-
empowers reporting and early intervention
-
incomplete reach to some groups due to their intentional motives requiring long-term practicing to produce positive changes
-
younger generations can pose engagement challenges because potential lack of interest
-
possible difficulty in measuring long-term impact and evaluation
-
different target groups (ex. youth, tourists, …) require tailor-made approaches
1.3. Data Gathering
-
helps in crafting tailored measures for specific municipalities and sites
-
mapping hot spots, motivation, and recognizing patterns significantly facilitate enforcement and thus reduce graffiti vandalism
-
gathering and analyzing data can be resource intensive
-
dependence on cooperation between various involved stakeholders
1.4. Heritage Management
-
increases sustainability and resilience of endangered sites
-
adaptability to threats
-
partnerships between stakeholders facilitate surveillance and interventions
-
complex stakeholder participation
-
tailoring management strategies can be resource expensive
-
over-restrictive management may deter visitors and reduce accessibility
1.5. Legal Art Sites
-
controlled expression reduces likelihood of graffiti vandalism
-
cultural enrichment due to legal proliferation of new urban art form
-
legal art sites can serve as platform for new talents, interests
-
legal sites can attract visitors and tourists interested in this unique form of art
-
promoting sense of ownership and respect for the sites
-
limited reach, e.g., to those with anti-establishment motives, or worldwide popular artists who wish to remain anonymous (like Banksy)
-
unintentional misuse of legal art sites and possible attraction of vandals
-
risk of art sites overregulation, or visitor compliance can discourage artists involvement
2. Reactive
2.1. Criminal Sanctions
-
promotes accountability among offenders
-
requiring offenders to repair damage reduces expenditures
-
punitive measures can deter other vandals from committing vandalism
-
punitive measures alone may not address deeper motivations behind graffiti vandalism
2.2. Graffiti Removal and Damage Repair
-
graffiti removal effectively restores order and likelihood of graffiti vandalism proliferation according to broken window theory
-
identifying valuable graffiti encourages a balanced approach
-
value recognition and determining whether graffiti is vandalism or art can be subjective, leading to inconsistent removal practices
-
penalizing property owners for delayed removal places additional financial and logistical pressure
-
graffiti removal, especially from heritage sites, can be resource intensive
-
due to successful removal, vandals can migrate to different areas
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Raič, M.; Jelinčić, D.A. Types and Effectiveness of Public Policy Measures Combatting Graffiti Vandalism at Heritage Sites. Heritage 2025, 8, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8010018

AMA Style

Raič M, Jelinčić DA. Types and Effectiveness of Public Policy Measures Combatting Graffiti Vandalism at Heritage Sites. Heritage. 2025; 8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8010018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Raič, Marko, and Daniela Angelina Jelinčić. 2025. "Types and Effectiveness of Public Policy Measures Combatting Graffiti Vandalism at Heritage Sites" Heritage 8, no. 1: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8010018

APA Style

Raič, M., & Jelinčić, D. A. (2025). Types and Effectiveness of Public Policy Measures Combatting Graffiti Vandalism at Heritage Sites. Heritage, 8(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8010018

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop