INTRODUCTION

Environmental criminology offers one way in which research into the geography of crime
may develop. Its focus upon the place at which an offence occurs aligns well with
geographical approaches centrally interested in location, territory and urban environments as
influences upon patterns of criminal events. From the available research literature four area
hypotheses are identified, three of which fall clearly within the limits of environmental
criminology; the fourth retains a link with wider criminological concerns with causation and
the distribution of offenders in space. Residential crime, taken to mean burglary and theft
from dwellings, tends to show spatial clustering in particular parts of the city in what are
termed vulnerable areas.

Environmental criminology offers a particular kind of approach which lends itself to the
formation of short-term policies for crime prevention.

Environmental criminology first emerged as a formally recognized sub-area of the general

study of criminology in the early 1980s. Environmental criminology involves the study of
crime, criminality and victimization as they relate to particular environments. Key to the
study of environmental criminology is the understanding of how environments influence
individual behavior within a geo-spatial context. Environmental criminologists study the
relationships between space (geography), time, law, offender and targets or victims – viewing
these components as integral parts in the formulation of a criminal event. By examining the
time and place context of a criminal event, environmental criminologists are able to estimate
how changes to the built environment, landscape, urban design and the daily activities and
movements of people can reduce the likelihood of crimes from occurring. Increasingly,
environmental criminologists use geographic information systems (GIS) technologies to
visualize and map crime patterns, as well as aid in development of crime reduction strategies
and programs.

Emerging from environmental criminology is the study of geography of crime. Geography of

crime addresses the ways spatio-temporal patterns produced through the interactions of
people, society, space, time and crime are analyzed. Some of the earliest examinations of
crime patterns from a spatio-temporal perspective come from Lambert Quetelet and Andre-
Michel Guerry during the mid-1800s. Quetelet and Guerry are noted for producing the first
crime maps, which presented provincial crime rates in France. Over the decades, the study of
the geography of crime has become a critical aspect in the advancement of crime analysis,
whereby the behavioral and social implications of geography on crime can be better
understood and examined. Today, geography of crime provides a foundational component in
the formulation of crime reduction strategies, investigative approaches, and the emergence of
predictive policing – whereby the risk of criminal events are predicted using spatio-temporal
pattern analysis.

Developed during the same period as environmental criminology and geography of crime,
came James Q. Wilson and George Kelling’s Broken Windows theory. Introduced in the
March 1982 edition of The Atlantic, broken windows theory suggests that if a broken
window is not repaired in a timely manner, other windows will eventually be broken, causing
and symbolizing a sense of public apathy and community disorder to develop – ultimately
attracting criminals to the area. This theory holds that vandals will repeatedly target buildings
in a state of physical disorder, and the only way to prevent further decline is to rapidly repair
and improve properties in decay. Community disorder causes a breakdown in local social
control, ultimately resulting in crime. Unless caught early and fully addressed, social control
will continue to erode and incidence of crime will increase. Physical disorder can be typified
as broken windows, neglected vacant lots, derelict buildings, abandoned vehicles, and
properties that have graffiti. Social disorder includes events such as aggressive panhandling,
street-level prostitution, low-level drug dealing, loitering and other activities that violate
traditional social norms. At its core, the broken windows theory predicts that disorder is a
fundamental precursor to serious crime.

C. Ray Jeffery developed the notion of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) in 1971. CPTED constitutes a multi-disciplinary approach for preventing crime
through the engineering and design of environments. CPTED is based on the understanding
that the behavior of potential offenders can be influenced through the altering of physical
space, which characteristically is applied to the urban environment. If poorly applied, CPTED
can result in obtrusive physical security features being used to control access to a property,
ultimately resulting in over-fortification. CPTED generally focuses on deterring offenders
from committing offences in specific spaces thus risks displacing, rather than preventing
criminal activity. Despite criticism, CPTED has been shown as a valuable and informed
means to prevent crime, and has helped many communities realize reduced incidence of
crime.
Environmental criminology is interested in the interactions between people and what
surrounds them (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1998). Crime is viewed as the product of
potential offenders and their immediate and distal setting. “Environmental criminologists set
out to use the geographic imagination in concert with the sociological imagination to
describe, understand, and control criminal events” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981c, p.
21). Their research is distinguished from the earlier ecological work of the Chicago School
by this concern with the environment and by a change in focus from offender to criminal
event. The field is multidisciplinary, its threads derived from human ecology, environmental
psychology, behavioural geography, and the cognitive sciences.

Traditionally, the main interest of criminological positivism has been the offender, and much
effort has gone into studying their backgrounds, peer influences, criminal careers, and the
effects of deterrence. This focus has ignored the other components of crime — the victim, the
criminal law, and the crime setting (Jeffery, 1977). Crime setting or place, the “where and
when” of the criminal act, makes up what Brantingham and Brantingham call the fourth
dimension of crime, the primary concern of environmental criminology.

Research in this area has taken a broad approach by including operational, perceptual,
behavioural, social, psychological, legal, cultural, and geographic settings in its analyses.
Micro, meso, and macrolevels have all been examined, and future research efforts will likely
attempt a theoretical synthesis (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981c, 1984, 1998). One of
environmental criminology’s major interests, the study of the dimensions of crime at the
microspatial level, has led to useful findings in the area of crime prevention (see, for example,
R. V. Clarke, 1992, 1997). Other projects include the analyses of crime trips (Rhodes &
Conly, 1981), efforts to understand target and victim selections through opportunities for
crime (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981c), crime prevention initiatives, notably crime
prevention through environmental design (CPTED) (Jeffery, 1977; Taylor, Gottfredson, &
Brower, 1980; Wood, 1981), studies of shopping mall crime (Brantingham, Brantingham, &
Wong, 1990), proposals for rapid transit security (Brantingham, Brantingham, & Wong,
1991; Buckley, 1996; Felson, 1989), and the analysis of patterns of fugitive migration
(Rossmo, 1987; Rossmo & Routledge, 1990).

Various theoretical approaches have been identified within the environmental criminology
field, including the consequence model, contextual theory, event mobility model, human
ecology, pattern theory, rational choice theory, routine activity theory, and strategic analysis
(Brantingham & Brant- ingham, 1998). Despite their differences, these approaches all share a
common concern for context. Felson and Clarke (1998) suggest that individual behaviour is a
product of a person’s interaction with their physical setting, and that setting provides varying
levels of opportunity for crime. Routine activity, rational choice, and pattern theories have
different emphases — society, local area, and the individual, respectively. But all three
perspectives converge at the nexus of setting and opportunity. Crime opportunities depend on
everyday movements and activities. Society and locality can change and structure crime
opportunity, but it is the individual who chooses to offend.

Geographic profiling is based on the ideas and theoretical principles of environmental

criminology. Pattern, routine activity, and rational choice theories all provide relevant
perspectives, as does the geography of crime research within the event mobility model. Any
research into the target patterns and hunting behaviour of criminal predators must be aware of
the microlevel dimensions of offender, victim, crime, and environment.

Environmental Criminology and the Path to Crime Control

Environmental criminology studies criminal events as products of the convergence of

potential offenders with potential targets at specific points in space-time under specific sets of
limiting and facilitating conditions. Studies in this field have focused on spatial patterns in
offender and target movement against the backdrop of broader social routines. They have
generally demonstrated that offenders, like other people, move around in predictable and
routine ways. The journey to crime is similar to and subject to the same constraints as the
journey to work or the shopping trip. In this sense, at least, most criminals are like everybody
else.

Environmental criminologists have largely been interested in crime prevention. Their work
has focused on predicting those places that are likely to be vulnerable to crime because of the
way they fit into people’s routine activities and travel patterns. Situational prevention
techniques prevent crimes by preventing the convergence of offenders and targets in
vulnerable locations without simply displacing them to other places.

Environmental criminology offers one way in which research into the geography of crime
may develop. Its focus upon the place at which an offence occurs aligns well with
geographical approaches centrally interested in location, territory and urban environments as
influences upon patterns of criminal events. From the available research literature four area
hypotheses are identified, three of which fall clearly within the limits of environmental
criminology; the fourth retains a link with wider criminological concerns with causation and
the distribution of offenders in space. Residential crime, taken to mean burglary and theft
from dwellings, tends to show spatial clustering in particular parts of the city in what are
termed vulnerable areas.

Environmental criminology offers a particular kind of approach which lends itself to the
formation of short-term policies for crime prevention.

Environmental criminology describes the relationship of the individual environments in

which crimes occur and how they influence or contribute to criminal activity and behavior.

Environmental criminology describes the relationship of the individual environments in

which crimes occur and how they influence or contribute to criminal activity and behavior.

The Four Elements of Crime

Criminologists insist that there are four necessary elements for a crime to occur. If one of
these elements are not present, then no crime has occurred.

• Law: First, there must be a law to be broken. If the activity is not illegal, then
obviously it can't be criminal.

• Offender: Second, someone must have broken the law. If there is no offender, there is
no crime.

• Victim or Target: Third, in order for an act to be criminal, there must be a victim. In
so-called "victimless" crimes, the state or community as a whole is said to be the victim
because of the problems that are believed to be a result of the behavior.

• Place: Fourth, the activity or behavior must have occurred in a place. There can be no
crime in a vacuum.

Focus on the Environment

For environmental criminologists, the fourth element, the place, is the focus of their studies.
The field began to develop in the early 1980's and looks at the environmental factors that they
believe can lead to crime and criminal behavior.

In studying the place, environmental criminologists are not so much focused on the
geographic location, but on the elements within the location, such as lighting conditions, the
state of repair or disrepair that buildings may be in, and other neighborhood conditions.
Environmental criminology looks at data such as the time and place of crimes in order to help
law enforcement officers better understand where crimes are occurring. This helps police
officers focus their patrols in order to take a more preventative approach to crime-solving, as
opposed to a reactionary approach. In this way, environmental criminology is complementary
to community-oriented policing.

Crime Mapping

One of the most recognizable examples of environmental criminology put into practice is the
crime map. No doubt, we've seen television shows or movies, or maybe we've ever been to a
local police station, where we've seen a large map posted to a wall with pins and other
markings on it. Those pins or marks indicate areas where crimes have occurred and are a very
basic example of what criminologists call "crime mapping." Environmental criminologists
take the mapping even further, pouring over the data to search for patterns.

Identifying Patterns

The ultimate goal is to use any patterns they locate to help identify the root causes of the
crimes and help devise workable solutions to the problem. For example, if a large number of
robberies are occurring in a specific place at a specific time, environmental criminologists
will want to look at that location at that time to determine what the contributing factors may
be.

Broken Windows Theory

There is a belief held by some criminologists that fits in line very well with the overall idea
behind environmental criminology. The thinking is that people act according to what they
perceive to be the social norms of their environment. When other people are not around to
demonstrate normative behaviour, people must instead look to their environment for clues.

The "Broken Windows Theory" suggests that the physical and visible state of the buildings,
lawns, homes, and businesses provide important cues as to how people behave in that area.
The idea is that the more broken windows there are in the neighbourhood, the higher the
likelihood that there is a crime in the area.

The environmental perspective is based on three premises:

1. Criminal behaviour is significantly influenced by the nature of the immediate environment

in which it occurs. The environmental perspective depends upon the principle that all
behaviour results from a personsituation interaction. The environment is not just a passive
backdrop for criminal behaviour but rather, it plays a fundamental role in initiating the crime
and shaping its course. Thus, crime events result not only from criminogenic individuals;
they are equally caused by criminogenic elements of the crime scene. Environmental
criminology explains how immediate environments affect behaviour and why some
environments are criminogenic.

2. The distribution of crime in time and space is non-random. Because criminal behaviour is
dependent upon situational factors, crime is patterned according to the location of
criminogenic environments. Crime will be concentrated around crime opportunities and other
environmental features that facilitate criminal activity. Crime rates vary from suburb to
suburb and from street to street, and may peak at different times of the day, different days of
the week, and different weeks of the year. The purpose of crime analysis is to identify and
describe these crime patterns.

3.Understanding the role of criminogenic environments and being aware of the way that
crime is patterned are powerful weapons in the investigation, control and prevention of crime.
This knowledge allows police, crime prevention practitioner and other interested groups to
concentrate resources on particular crime problems in particular locations. Changing the
criminogenic aspects of targeted environment can reduce the incidence of crime in that
location. Environmental criminology and crime analysis combine to provide practical
solutions to crime problems.

Across these three domains of theory, analysis and practice, the environmental perspective is
multi-disciplinary in its foundations, empirical in its methods, and utilitarian in its mission.
The environmental perspective draws on the ideas and expertise of sociologists,
psychologists, geographers, architects, town planners, industrial designers, computer
scientists, demographers, political scientists and economists. It embraces measurement and
the scientific method, and it is committed to building theories and providing advice that are
based on rigorous analysis of the available data. Finally, environmental criminologists and
crime analysts actively engage with law enforcement personnel and crime prevention
practitioners to help reduce crime.

Environmental Interventions Based on Theories

Below we describe potential interventions based on these theories and literature that
addresses the effectiveness of these kinds of interventions in increasing safety, both actual
and perceived.

Removal of Disorder

Broken Windows Theory (BWT) suggests that the disorderly appearance of a place,
including the presence of physical and social incivilities, significantly impacts perceived
safety and crime rates. Interventions grounded in this theory seek to clear the disorder to alter
people's perceptions and behavior. Removing disorder would create a new visual appearance
but would be less likely to provide a new social dynamic for that place (Welsh et al., 2015).

Vegetation

In addition to removing signs of disorder, urban professionals often add vegetation in urban
spaces to promote safety. Also grounded in the BWT, this intervention improves perceived
safety by altering the appearance of the place to show a more inviting social image. Studies
suggest well-maintained vegetation can act as a territorial marker or a cue that the space is
cared for, thus discouraging deviance and crime (Kuo et al., 1998; Troy et al., 2016). The
presence of vibrant, orderly vegetation is a strong indicator of human management while a
barren space is often perceived as neglected land (Troy et al., 2016).

A handful of studies reported that the presence of vegetation also promotes safety by
encouraging greater use of public space, thereby providing greater social supervision (Kuo
and Sullivan, 2001; Branas et al., 2011, 2018; Donovan and Prestemon, 2012). In some
circumstances, adding vegetation can change the function of the space, inviting people to
participate in legitimate routine activities. A spacious barren area can be transformed into a
public green space for a wide range of recreational activities. For example, researchers
exploring vegetation in a Chicago public housing complex reported that areas with greater
vegetation had more users (Coley et al., 1997). However, in a narrow urban alley, there
would be less space for recreation, and adding a small dose of vegetation would more likely
transform the appearance rather than the actual function of the space.

Other findings suggest that added vegetation does not always make people feel safer. Some
studies indicate that vegetation makes a space seem less safe if it is naturalistic (Yang et al.,
2013), is poorly maintained (Jansson et al., 2013), contains too much undergrowth (Jansson
et al., 2013), or creates a visual obstacle or conceals things (Madge, 1997). Another study
reported the presence of short trees in front of or adjacent to house properties is positively
associated with neighborhood crime rates (Troy et al., 2016). Together, these findings suggest
vegetation can make a positive impact on perceived or actual safety if it is well designed and
maintained.

Urban Functions

Routine Activity Theory (RAT) emphasizes improving the safety of a space by changing the
function of an urban space to create a healthy social structural setting that supports routine
activities and promotes a stronger social dynamic with greater informal supervision. The
social dynamic and supervision should be more intensive, diverse, enduring, and have a
stronger functional connection with other places, residents, or visitors in close proximity.
Urban alleys are mostly seen as passageways, but they can be transformed to become
destinations for daily recreational, entertainment, shopping, exercise, or other routine
activities. Jacobs (1961) emphasizes that parks can enhance people's perceived safety because
they embrace urban activities and increase the number of eyes on the street (more capable
guardians). Spaces with public amenities attract regular citizens for their daily activities.
People can participate in necessary, optional, or social activities, which enhance supervision
and increase people's perceived safety. In one of the few studies evaluating recent urban alley
greening strategies, people preferred transformations that highlight not only cleanliness but
also functions and recreational opportunities (Seymour et al., 2010).

Not all urban functions and amenities may increase perceived safety. Prior studies have
shown some urban amenities may encourage risky activities and lead to rising crime rates.
For example, Furr-Holden et al. (2011) found more abandoned buildings were associated
with lower social control and then adolescents' higher rate of drug use because those
buildings provided spaces for drug dealing and usage. Roncek and Pamela (1991) found that
the number of taverns on 4,400 blocks of Cleveland was significantly associated with
criminal activity because alcohol use may lead to aggressive behaviors (more motivated
offenders) and individuals visiting the taverns may carry a lot of cash (more attractive
victims).
Broken Windows Theory

The Broken Windows Theory says that an unfixed

broken window will invite more broken windows and eventually more crime.

Traditionally, broken windows theory has revolved around how social cues such as graffiti,
litter and vagrancy can snowball into more serious and widespread crime. It posits that when
people see rule-breaking in the environment they reason that misconduct is acceptable,
making them more likely to break rules themselves. The theory has been particularly
influential on policing in the United States, ushering in a series of controversial policies
around crime prevention.

“The prevailing wisdom is that one must see social cues of rule-breaking in order for rule-
breaking behavior to spread, but many of these social cues have visually disordered
components. Imagine graffiti or a broken window both of which tend to have messy and often
disorganized lines,” Berman said. “Our research calls into question the necessity of having a
social cue of disorder to promote rule-breaking, rather one might only need to perceive
disorderly lines to cause disorderly behavior.”

The Broken Windows theory created a positive environment were people who feared
becoming crime victims would no longer want to abandon their communities. Instead it
promoted community members to stay active in programs focused on prevention and
reduction of criminal activity. In addition Broken Window policies sparked a revolutionary
change in policing. In trouble neighborhoods were home foreclosures were the highest, the
police worked with the community to improve the foreclosed homes physical appearance in
turn improving the appearance of the community. If a window was broken the owner had to
immediately replace it, if an owner was not found then the community replaced the broken
windows. If the front yarn needed maintenance once again the owner was contacted if the
owner could not be contacted the community would set up volunteer to help clean the yard. If
there was graffiti on the walls they would immediately get painted over or scrubbed, then
establish tough zero tolerance policy to deal with graffiti artist. If there were abandoned cars
then immediately haul them out.

The “Broken Windows” theory can be applied to almost every other city or county where one
resides. There is always that one part of a city where it’s known to fit into this theory. For
example in some phoenix neighborhood that had drinking bars and liquor stores, customers
were not allowed to drink outside. The business in collaboration with local police would
make sure that there wouldn’t be any homeless and drunks on the sidewalls. The residents
would also establish community programs to help the homeless and individual dealing with
alcoholism.

Another example would apply to the growing problems the Buckeye police had to deal with,
due to the high rates of foreclosed homes. The “Broken Windows” theory has implied that
crime is more likely to occur in areas that are abandoned and not well taken care of. “Broken
Windows” theory as explained by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, they describe how
not only “physical signs that an area is unattended” is where crime will more likely take
place, but also the type of “public” it is attracting to those areas. When home owners abandon
their homes, criminals would tend to hide or be out of the public’s sight on foreclosed homes.
The homes are also a loitered and frequented by drug users. Foreclosed homes will then tend
to become “hanging out spots” for the local weths. The abandoned homes will then tend to
get vandalized and have possible property damaged. Eventually these homes will deter
potentially home buyers. However, Broken Windows Policing is not an answer to eradicate
all crime, instead policies are intended to be proactive and preventive in working with the
community and the local police to prevent and deter crime.1

What is Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED)?

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is aimed at identifying conditions

of the physical and social environment that provides opportunities for or precipitates criminal
acts . . . and the alteration of those conditions so that no crimes occur. Since it is aimed at
preventing occurrences of criminality, CPTED is conceptually distinct and significantly
different from the reactive (and largely failing) strategies employed by the police, courts, and
correctional facilities in the American criminal justice system (Robinson, 1996).

1
https://study.com/academy/lesson/environmental-criminology-definition-theory-crime-analysis.html
In addition, CPTED focuses on reducing opportunities for crime, primarily in public
environments. It does not focus on family violence in work places or schools. The fabric and
design of public spaces can deter criminal activities. Offenders who feel they are likely to be
noticed are much less likely to commit crimes in public spaces. From the potential victim’s
viewpoint, perception of safety can be enhanced through good planning and design of public
spaces (Glen, 2002).

For example, the lawet and design of urban areas can either discourage or encourage feelings
of safety for users. Discouraging designs include poor lighting, recessed doorways on the
street or dark, narrow alleyways. Encouraging designs include well-lit footpaths, and
bus/train stops, buildings with an open street front and parks that are observable from
surrounding streets and houses (Glen, 2002).

A number of variations and refinements of the basic CPTED concept have been offered.
Generally, CPTED focuses on the settings in which crimes occur and on techniques for
reducing vulnerability of the setting, because its central premise is that crime can be
facilitated or inhibited by features of the physical environment. CPTED is the specific
management, design, or manipulation of the immediate environment in which crimes occur in
a systematic and permanent way (Robinson, 1996). While CPTED generally involves
changing the environment to reduce the opportunity for crime, it is aimed at other outcomes
including reducing fear of crime, increasing the aesthetic quality of an environment, and
increasing the quality of life for law-abiding citizens, especially by reducing the propensity of
the physical environment to support criminal behavior (Robinson, 1996).

The underlying logic of designing a specific external environment in order to prevent crime
makes sense for several reasons. For example, crime prevention efforts aimed at people
through methods such as ‘general deterrence’ and ‘special deterrence’ are less sure to work,
for the placement of people in the physical environment is temporary owing to their mobile
nature – i.e., they are not permanent fixtures of most environments for an extended period of
time. Things such as buildings and other physical features of the environment are “relatively
permanent.” As a result, CPTED can produce effects on crime and perceptions of personal
crime risks. Yet, the idea that CPTED only applies to the external physical environment is
limited. To be more effective, CPTED should be applied both, to external and internal
environments, or to the environments of the place and the offender, respectively (Robinson,
1996).
The term “environment” in standard CPTED definitions includes only the external
environment of the place and not the internal environment of the offender. del Carmen (1977)
recently proposed a re-definition of the term “environment” to include both the macro
(external) and the micro (internal) levels of analysis. Jeffrey’s concept of CPTED already has
evolved into a crime prevention approach that encompasses both the external environment of
the place and the internal environment of the offender (Robinson, 1996).

Many critical thinkers are credited with the theoretical development of CPTED.

Wood - Housing Design: A Social Theory (1961). The idea of CPTED began taking shape
when Elizabeth Wood developed security guidelines while working with the Chicago
Housing Authority in the 1960s (Colquhoun, 2004). An American sociologist, she focused on
public housing units and on using physical improvements to enhance visibility. This was
applied to the location of seating for adults around child play areas and in entrances to large
blocks of flats used as lobbies, reception areas or meeting places. Wood’s particular focus
was teenagers and their lack of facilities. Somewhat ahead of her time, she recommended the
use vandal-proof materials and designs for facilities and encouraged the use of a resident
caretaker to liaise with housing management. Her approach suggested that design and
‘surveillability’ needed to be considered simultaneously.

Jacobs – The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) Jacobs’ work was an
indictment of urban planning that had developed after the Second World War. She criticised
the separation and zoning of land uses in America arguing for more diverse and mixed land
uses. Following observations in Boston, Jacobs (1961) recommended the clear demarcation
between public and private space and clarifying the function of space to promote
‘territoriality’ and a sense of ownership of space by residents. She introduced the concept of
‘eyes on the street’ (surveillance) whereby residents have enhanced opportunities to ‘self-
police’ the streets in housing configurations which are oriented to face each other and provide
intervisibility of properties and of the streetscape. She observed that busy streets with a
diverse mix of land-uses provided more ‘eyes on the street’ and this could potentially reduce
opportunities for crime. However, although Jacobs’ ideas were innovative for their time and
have significantly influenced CPTED and planning policy and practice over the years, her
observations were primarily anecdotal and were highly specific to inner city areas of one
large American city. Crucially, she explicitly advised against applying these findings to small
cities and suburbs.
Crime displacement is the relocation of crime from one place, time, target, offense, or tactic
to another as a result of some crime prevention initiative. Spatial displacement is by far the
most commonly recognized form,1 though the other four are also frequently acknowledged
by those studying crime prevention effects. Formally, the possible forms of displacement are:

Also sometimes listed is offender displacement (when new offenders take the place of
offenders who were arrested or have desisted from crime), but this is actually offender
replacement. Displacement is a term reserved for changes offenders make so they can
continue to offend when faced with reduced opportunities.

 Temporal offenders change the time at which they commit crime;

 Spatial offenders switch from targets in one location to targets in another location;
 Target offenders change from one type of target to another;
 Tactical offenders alter the methods used to carry out crime; and
 Offense offenders switch from one form of crime to another.

Overall, displacement is viewed as a negative consequence of crime prevention efforts, but in

some cases it can still provide some benefit. Current thinking on crime displacement suggests
that beneficial or "benign" displacement can occur when the harm produced by the displaced
crime or problem behavior is less than what existed before the intervention. Specifically,
benign displacement can occur in a variety of ways and is when the displaced crime is:

 Less serious, such as the shift to petty thefts from robbery

 Less impactful on the community, which can occur three ways:

1. The concentration of crime is redistributed across a larger pool of victims (i.e.,

relocating victimization from a small group of repeat victims).

2. The crime is transferred away from more vulnerable groups of the population,

such as children and the elderly.

3. The crime is relocated to places where the community impact is less harmful.

For example, a street drug or prostitution market relocates  from a residential
area to a remote area, which would reduce fear of crime or residential and
business decay, or the same volume of crime disperses to a larger area where
the harm is less concentrated.
  Lower in volume. For instance, the target area may experience a reduction of 100
crimes post response, but the displacement of the crime resulted in an increase of 50
crimes in the comparison area post response. Thus, a net reduction of 50 crimes was
achieved.

At worst, displacement can lead to more harmful consequences. This occurs when there is
a shift to more serious offenses or to similar offenses that have more serious
consequences. Referred to as "malign" displacement, it involves any situation where the
relocation of crime makes matters worse. This could be an increase in the volume of
crime at the relocated area, a shift to more serious crime types, the concentration of crime
to a smaller group of victims, the relocation of crime to places where it has greater impact
on the community, or the relocation of crime to more vulnerable groups of the population.

Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits

The opposite of crime displacement is diffusion of crime control benefits. Crime diffusion
entails the reduction of crime (or other improvements) in areas or ways that are related to
the targeted crime prevention efforts, but not targeted by the response itself. Though less
recognized than displacement, diffusion is recorded in many research evaluations of
crime prevention responses. Diffusion effects are referred to in a variety of ways
including the "bonus effect," the "halo effect," the "free-rider effect," and the "multiplier
effect." In cases where any degree of diffusion is observed, the benefit of any response
effects experienced in the targeted area are amplified as improvements were gained
without expending resources in those areas.

As with displacement, diffusion of benefits can occur in many forms. Spatial and target
diffusion occurs when areas or other crime targets near the intervention zone also
experience a reduction in crime. Temporal diffusion occurs when other time periods
experience a reduction in crime even though the intervention was not applied during those
times. Crime type diffusion occurs when other crime types are prevented even though
they were not targeted by the intervention (for instance, a project targeting commercial
burglary may also achieve an added reduction in shoplifting).2

The Crime Triangle

2
https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/tool-guides-analyzing-crime-displacement-and-diffusion-page-4
 3

The crime triangle (also known as the problem analysis triangle) comes straight out of
one of the main theories of environmental criminology - routine activity theory. “Routine
Activity Theory” provides a simple and powerful insight into the causes of crime
problems. At its heart is the idea that in the absence of effective controls, offenders will
prey upon attractive targets. To have a crime, a motivated offender must come to the
same place as an attractive target. For property crimes the target is a thing or an object.
For personal crimes the target is a person. If an attractive target is never in the same place
as a motivate offender, the target will not be taken, damaged, or assaulted. Also, there are
controllers whose presence can prevent crime. If the controllers are absent, or present but
powerlessness, crime is possible. First, consider people who are influential in the lives of
potential offenders. In the case of juveniles these might be parents, close relatives,
siblings, peers, teachers, coaches, and other similarly placed individuals. In the case of
adults these people may include intimate partners, close friends, relatives, and sometimes
their children. These people are called “handlers” in routine activity theory. Crimes will
take place where handlers are absent, weak, or corrupt. Next consider targets, or victims.
Guardians try to protect targets from theft and damage and potential victims from attack
and assault. Formal guardians include the police, security guards, and others whose job is
to protect people and property from crime. Informal guardians include neighbors, friends,
and others who happen to be in the same place as the attractive target. Parents, teachers,
peers and others close to potential victims are also potential guardians. A target with an

3
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcrimeanalystsblog.blogspot.com
%2F2011%2F07%2Fcrime-analysis-101-crime-triangle.html
effective guardian is less likely to be attacked by a potential offender than a target without
a guardian. If the guardian is absent, weak, or corrupt little protection is provided the
target. Finally, consider places. Someone owns every location and ownership confers
certain rights to regulate access to the site and behaviors of people using the site. The
owner and the agents of the owner (e.g., employees) look after the place and the people
using the place. Owners and their agents are called place managers. Place managers
control the behavior of offenders and potential victims. Examples of place manager
include merchants, lifeguards, parking lot attendants, recreation and park workers,
janitors, and motel clerks. In the presence of an effective place manager, crime is less
likely than when the manager is absent, weak or corrupt. All of the people in this theory
use tools to help accomplish their criminal or crime control objectives. Tools that gang
members use may include spray paint cans, guns, and cars. Offenders without access to
tools are less likely to be able escape handlers, enter unauthorized places, and overcome
victims, guardians, and managers. Guardians may use light to increase surveillance,
engraving devices to mark property, and other devices to help reduce the chances of
victimization. Place managers can use gates, fences, signs and other tools to regulate
conduct. With effective tools handlers, victims, guardians, and managers will have a
greater chance of keeping crimes from occurring. The tools used are often highly specific
to the crime in question.

The tools an offender needs for a burglary (e.g., a screw driver) are likely to be different
from those needed for a robbery (e.g., a gun), for example.

The relationship of the actors, places and tools is depicted in the problem triangle, shown
in Figure 1. Problems occur when offenders are at the same places as targets, without any
effective controller. If one or more of the controllers is present, however, the chances of
crime are greatly reduced. The effectiveness of the people involved will depend, in part
on the tools they have available. Adding or subtracting various elements in this model
will alter the chances of crime. The presence of attractive targets, weak handlers,
ineffective guardianship, and indifferent management is not randomly distributed across
places. Offenders do not wander aimlessly across the landscape. Like everyone else,
offenders have routine behaviors that take them away from handlers and lead them to
discover places with attractive targets. Potential victims also follow routines that separate
them from effective guardians in places with weak management. The spatial ordering of
crime opportunities and the routines of offenders and victims creates many of the crime
 problems we see. This theory of crime also suggests ways of preventing these problems.
The questions in the guide and the responses list are organized around each of the eleven
elements shown in Figure 1. The guide asks problem solvers a series of questions about
offenders, handlers, targets, guardians, places, managers, and the tools used by each. The
answers to these questions, which will vary by problem, suggest possible responses. Thus,
responses are problem specific (for example, a residential burglary problem in a
neighborhood of single family residences may require different responses than one in a
large apartment complex, and a residential burglary problem in an apartment complex
near a heavily traveled highway may require different responses than one in an apartment
in a more isolated location). Though responses are problem specific, there are often
several possible responses to any specific problem. Few problems will have unique
responses. Instead, the special insight of problem solvers is to choose among possible
responses that can be implemented. Further, if one approach does not work, other backup
responses are usually possible. Though it is possible to use the guide and responses list
without understanding the basics of routine activity theory, knowing this theory helps use
the guide and list with greater flexibility. For example, if someone proposes a potential
solution to a problem, it is possible to determine if the solution is appropriate. To do this
the problem solver identifies which of the 58 possible responses the proposed solution
resembles most closely. The problem solver then works backwards from the solution list
to the questions. The questions describe the types of answers needed for the solution to fit
the problem. If the answers to the questions are consistent with the solution, the proposed
solution may be appropriate. In short, the more familiar one is with routine activity
theory, the more adaptable the guide and solution list will be. Additional information on
routine activity theory can be found in the references cited below, particularly Clarke
(1997) and Felson (1994).4

Situational Crime Prevention

Traditional crime prevention strategies aim at reducing crime and violence by changing
criminal tendencies. Situational crime prevention (SCP) focuses on the more immediate
opportunities for offending. Situational crime prevention seeks to reduce the harms
caused by crime through altering immediate or situational factors in the environments
where crime regularly occurs.

4
https://ncjtc-static.fvtc.edu/Resources/RS00002719.pdf
There are many methodologies that are implemented to create situational crime
prevention categories. Here we will discuss which prevention ideas have been successful
in the workplace in addition to personal crime prevention.

In the examples, try and place werself in these situations. Imagine that we are home alone
and that we hear a noise outside. Think about what techniques we could employ to keep
werself and wer belongings safe. Or we may be the business owner described. We will do
everything in wer power to run a successful business, and part of that is keeping all
employees safe and merchandise from getting stolen. How will we accomplish that?

How Does SCP Work?

The SCP framework consists of four major components. These can be considered the

pillars of the situational model. The fundamental elements include the following.

 Theoretical foundation is the explanation and the floor upon which SCP was started,
such as target hardening.

 Standard methodology is everyday normal practices that are not out of the norm,
such as an alarm at someone's home or business.

 Set of opportunity reducing techniques means having a set of relied-upon

procedures that can be deployed as needed after evaluating wer situation.

 Body of evaluated practice is to assess wer situation constantly and alter wer crime
prevention tactics when needed.

When interpreting the upcoming strategies, remember the fundamentals. These are the
backbone from which the theories of crime prevention are comprised. These work for
business and personal crime prevention schemes.

Crime Prevention Strategies

Have we ever seen a store with bars or a gate over the windows and/or doors? Maybe we
walked into a store and the clerk was behind a piece of glass, which was more than likely
bullet proof. These two concepts are crime prevention tactics known as target
hardening. Simply stated, they make a target more difficult, which is known
as theoretical foundation. We see this in the information technology (IT) world as well.
Theoretical foundation can include virus protection programs, personalized pins, card
chip readers; these are all basic examples of how the IT world uses target hardening to
 keep information secure. These are good tactics, along with signs that may read that the
store is under surveillance or that there is an alarm system.

Surveillance cameras can help deter crime.

Did we ever find werself driving through an area and see a sign that says ''speed enforced
by radar''? Now traffic cameras are certainly debatable, but there is one thing that cannot
be debated — speed kills. In high volume traffic areas, traffic cameras have proven to be
successful in limiting the number of traffic accidents. Thus, the number of personal
liability and wrongful death suits has also decreased. When we know there is an area of
town that has a traffic camera, there is a good possibility that we slow down.5

Reclaimed green space vs. crime rates in Wengstown – A case study

The city of Wengstown, Ohio, has been struggling with high unemployment and economic
stagnation since deindustrialization gutted the jobs there. With 31 percent of the city’s land
area vacant, Wengstown launched a program to turn those empty spaces into an asset. From
2010 to 2014, they hired a contractor to mow the plots and put fences around them. After a
year they added a program that gave local communities the funding to improve vacant lots as
they chose, including gardens, fruit trees, and monuments.

This program created a natural experiment: The city had variable treatments (contracted
improvement, locally driven improvement) and a control (unimproved vacant lots). When a
team of researchers examined crime data around these sites for a study published in 2015,

5
https://study.com/academy/lesson/situational-crime-prevention-definition-strategies.html
they found that the treatment lots had lower rates of property crime, like theft and burglary,
and violent crime. The effects weren’t identical, though. The contracted lots saw a greater
decline in property crime, while the community lots had a more pronounced reduction in
violent crime.

The findings suggest different types of green space have different effects on crime. The
contracted lots may have better visibility, which deters theft by eliminating vegetation that
can hide assailants or stashed loot, says Michelle Kondo, one of the authors of the study and a
research social scientist with the U.S. Forest Service. The gardens designed by the
community, meanwhile, might attract more care and attention from the local residents, thus
creating an atmosphere that deters heat-of-the-moment violence.

The researchers also looked at crimes in areas surrounding the test sites, to make sure the
park improvements weren’t simply displacing crime to nearby areas. The data indicated that
rates of crime were indeed falling in the surrounding areas, and not just shifting location. It
wasn’t all good news though: There was a significant increase in vehicle thefts at the greened
sites compared to the sites that were left vacant. The authors theorize that the nicer-looking
spaces might have invited more people to leave their cars around the greened areas than
before, creating more potential targets. On the whole, the study suggests cities should
prioritize the revitalization of vacant lots not just for aesthetic reasons or economic reasons,
but to fight crime as well.

Green stormwater plots vs. drug possession in Philadelphia

In 2000, Philadelphia launched a program to convert roadside gray spaces into vegetated
plots that soak up rainwater. Kondo and her colleagues examined 52 sites across the city,
along with control sites that hadn’t received the upgrade yet, and tracked 14 types of crime in
those places. They found a statistically significant reduction in narcotics possession around
the green improvements—the rate was 18 to 27 percent lower there than at control sites, even
as the citywide rate rose 65 percent.

Kondo speculates that the drop in possession might result from the visible change to the
previously paved and anonymous spaces. When they have plantings or well-tended lawns,
they tend to attract more positive attention and convey a stronger government presence.
But there’s more to it than that, says author Morgan Grove, who’s also a researcher with the
Forest Service. Criminals tend to look for spaces where they can operate without being seen,
or where if they’re seen they won’t be reported.

“The level of maintenance of the yard is almost like a neighbourhood watch sign saying, ‘We
have eyes on the street and we will say something,’” Grove says. “There’s a physical fact,
which is that people can see criminals, but also this symbolic meaning that reinforces the
social order that people will act upon their own behalf and on behalf of others.”

Whereas the “broken windows” theory suggests criminals look for physical signs of neglect
when scoping out targets, the Baltimore yard study supports the “cues to care” theory, that
visible maintenance of shared spaces presents “a sign of social capital and cohesion that
might deter criminals.”

Conclusion : Urban greenery should play more of a role in cities’ plans to reduce crime. A
good first step would be increasing public attention to landscaping in high-crime areas and
assisting residents in taking care of their own lots. This brings more urgency to cities’
maintenance of vegetation on public land. A dead tree on the sidewalk isn’t just a dead tree
anymore.
Conclusion and Suggestions

Environmental criminology has quickly become a widely recognized perspective on crime,

providing an umbrella under which several theories find a home. One common theme among
theories of environmental criminology is that they are a departure from traditional
criminology. The tradition has concentrated on exploring crime from the sociological or
psychological perspective, focusing on understanding criminality, or the sum of motivations,
drives, pushes, and pulls driving an individual toward criminal behavior. Environmental
criminologists, on the other hand, seek to understand and explore crime by focusing on the
criminal event by concerning themselves more with the places, spaces, and objects that either
facilitate or prevent a crime from occurring. Approaching crime from this point of view
prompts the researcher to focus on the opportunity constructs for crime and the patterns in
which crimes occur rather than social or psychological motivations. Quite literally,
environmental criminology is a criminological perspective which, in many respects, considers
the causes of crime to be highly related to the nature of the physical environment. That is to
say that the very nature of neighbourhoods, structures, and objects can have an impact on
crime directed in them, at them, and around them.

Suggestions:

 An increasingly urbanized world, planners need to think more critically about crime
and the built form, and insights from environmental criminology can assist in this
process.
 If planners become more knowledgeable about the theories and evidence from
environmental criminology (particularly at the local level), they will be able to make
more informed decisions regarding the design, management and use of urban space.
This highlights the crucial importance of conducting crime risk assessments and crime
impact assessments that potentially facilitate a more targeted and critical approach to
reducing crime and the fear of crime.
 Those who are responsible for planning, designing, building and maintaining our
cities need to be made aware of such environmental criminology research—
particularly if it derives from a different academic discipline.
  If planners are to effectively perform any kind of crime prevention function there is an
urgent need for more data sharing, and particularly more detailed and timely crime
data.
 Crime prevention is now a multi-agency responsibility, crime data should arguably be
more transparent, accessible and useable by those responsible for planning the design,
management and use of the built environment in an increasingly urbanized world.

References

Brantingham, Patricia L. and Paul J. Brantingham (1981). “Notes on the Geometry of

Crime.” In

Environmental Criminology, edited by Paul J. Brantingham and Patricia L. Brantingham.

Beverly Hills: Sage.

Clarke, Ronald V. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Second

edition. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson (1979). “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A
Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review. 44:588-605.

Eck, John E. (1994). Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of the Spatial

Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland,

College Park.

Felson, Marcus (1994). Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.