Future research also needs to pay more attention to the implementation of crime prevention programs and its influence on their outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). Successful implementation calls for taking account of local environment, context and conditions. For example, detailed observational and other information on the crime problem that is the focus of the attention, as well as the setting (e.g. road transportation secured facilities, unemployment rates), can be matched with the proven crime prevention program and modifications can then be made as required. The holistic approach is useful when risk arises from the environment and a greater understanding of the cause is needed to reduce the total risk.
Cargo crime prevention means many different issues to different peoples depending on which area they are focusing. Many programs and policy are introduced in order to prevent or deter cargo crime and the measures taken are more towards crime control. Usually crime prevention means the effort to prevent crime in the first instance where the act has not been committed yet. Both situations share the common ultimate goal to ensure the prevention of the future criminal act is more meaningful. The different between crime prevention from crime control is that prevention usually operates outside of the confines of the formal justice system (Braga, 2008; Braga and Weisburd, 2010; Weisburd et al., 2010). There are many ways of classifying crime prevention programs. More (1995) sees the crime prevention programs classified into three categories such as primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary prevention involves control measures concentrating on improving the secured facilities within the logistics network and target hardening of the cargo. The secondary prevention focuses on intervention with transportation personnel, fences or buyer of stolen cargoes and individuals who are highly at risk of being involved in criminal activities. Van Dijk and de Waard (1991) expanded this classification system to include second dimension that focus on target group in crime prevention programs. This second dimension distinguished between offender, situation and victim-oriented activities based on routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). This two-dimensional analogy allows programs to be organized in different stages of the criminal activities such as primary, secondary or tertiary stage and the target group. The key contribution of this new analogy is to confirm the needs and the efforts made in preventing crime. The researcher must also consider the crime victim or potential victim together with the targets of offender and place. Ekblom (1994) tried to reconcile these earlier versions with the mechanism and context based evaluation approach advocated by Pawson and Tilley (1994; 1997). There are three characteristics of crime prevention program that are relevant and they are the ultimate objectives, final intermediate objectives and the actual methods used from development to intervention. However Ekblom’s approach was not meant to be a rigid classification but rather to be more conceptual and that it can be realized in various ways in relation to both form and content according to their needs.
Another crime prevention classification that distinguishes four major prevention strategies is discussed by Tonry and Farrington (1995b). This type of crime prevention development refers to interventions designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals especially those targeting risk and protective factors that were discovered in studying human development (Tremblay & Craig, 1995; Farrington & Welsh, 2007b). Situational prevention refers to interventions that are designed to prevent the occurrences of crimes by reducing the crime opportunities and also increasing the risk and the difficulty to commit crime (Clark, 1995b; Cornish & Clark, 2003). Community prevention refers to interventions that are designed to change the social conditions and social institutions that will influence crime in residential communities (Hope, 1995). Criminal justice prevention programs refer to traditional deterrent and rehabilitative strategies enforced by law enforcement and criminal justice system agencies (MacKenzie, 2006).
Situational crime prevention focused on the setting or place in which criminal acts take place as well as its crime-specific focus. There are many findings that crime is not randomly distributed across a city or community, but it is instead highly concentrated at certain places known as crime “hot spots” (Sherman et al., 1989). Eck (2006) estimated that throughout the U.S., 10% of the places are sites for about 60% of where crimes happened (Eck, 2006). In the same way that individuals can have criminal careers, there are also criminal careers of places (Sherman, 1995). Situational crime prevention has been defined as a preventive approach that relies, not upon improving society or its institutions, but simply upon reducing opportunities for crime (Clarke, 1992). These different approaches serve as the basis of the highly detailed classification system of situational crime prevention, which can further be divided into separate techniques (Cornish & Clarke, 2003).
The theoretical origin of situational crime prevention is wide-ranging (see Newman et al., 1997; Garland, 2000), but it is largely informed by opportunity theory. This theory holds that the offender is heavily influenced by environmental inducements and opportunities and being highly adaptable to changes in the situation (Clarke, 1995a). Opportunity theory includes several more specific theories and one of these is the rational choice perspective. This perspective appears to have had the greatest influence on the pragmatic orientation of situational crime prevention, as articulated by its chief architect, Ronald Clarke (1995a, b, & 1997).