Reppetto (1976) put forward his theoretical underpinnings for the future analysis of crime displacement phenomenon and outlined five types of crime displacement as follows:
1. Temporal – Committing the intended crime at a different time
2. Tactical – Committing the intended crime in a different way
3. Target – Committing the intended crime type on a different target
4. Spatial – Committing the intended crime type to the same target in a different place
5. Functional – Committing a different type of crime
Ronald V. Clarke is one of the earliest criminology professors analyzing crime theory by defining crime which is being displaced as crime displacement theory. Clarke (1998) argued that crimes are displaced by removing opportunity for crime or by changing the situation of the crime and when this occurs it does not actually prevent crime but merely moves or shift the crime to another location. There are five main ways in which Clarke (1998) suggested that crime is being moved around:
i) Geographical displacement where the crime which can be moved from one location to another (different location);
ii) Temporal displacement where crime can be moved from one time to another (different timing);
iii) Target displacement where crime can be directed away from one target to another (different target);
iv) Tactical displacement when one method of committing crime can be substituted for another (different method);
v) Crime type displacement when one kind of crime can be substituted for another (different type).
Clark (1998) also revealed that crime can be minimized by the following:
a) Opportunity-reducing measures by analyzing the specific crimes;
b) Design the place which makes crime difficult to occur; and
c) Crime itself becomes more difficult and risky for the offenders.
2.4.1 Understanding and discussion on crime displacement theory
The theory of crime displacement is related to rational choice theory and there are three assumptions regarding the potential criminal and the target (Lab, 2000). Lab argued that crime displacement assumes that crime is inelastic; the criminal is flexible in relation to time, place, method and type of crime as well as the existence of unlimited alternatives targets. Professional criminals are more inelastic while opportunist criminal are more elastic (Hesseling, 1994). In reality, criminals are normally limited to their ability to move around, adjustable and flexible in comparative to a particular crime, location, time, method and the number of targets limited in one way or another (Hesseling, 1994). The theory of crime displacement does not explain the reason of criminals committing a certain crime or why some crimes are more attractive to them than others. Furthermore, it does not explain the criminals’ perceptions and reactions to changes in opportunities (Hesseling, 1994). The key element in all crime is the role that opportunity plays. For example, if there is no opportunity then there will not be any crime (Felson & Clarke, 1998). Crime displacement can happen in different ways or methods and often-stated opinion about crime displacement related to the theory and practical usages that is able to induce a sense of disbelief towards crime prevention measures (Town, 2001). One problem with the crime displacement theory is that it is accepted just because it instinctively appeals to people’s common sense. Town (2001) illuminates this problem as:
i. If criminals prevented or stopped in one location they can find another;
ii. Valuable of the commodities but it has its limitations and can changes with time;
iii. Total displacement and partial displacement which are different and common sense is more toward total displacement.
The theory of crime displacement states that rational thinking criminals with crime mobility will change the criminal behaviour in reaction to crime prevention efforts (Lab, 2000). Objectives of crime reduction opportunities that can lead to a change in all potential theft occurrences are therefore a valid theory in crime displacement.
Crime displacement is one probable explanation why the criminal pattern changes in a certain system. A practical and common belief about crime displacement is that if criminals have the ability, mobility and adaptability to break through the weakest link in the chain, then criminal will always want try their best to commit the crime (Ekwall & Lumsden, 2007). Crime preventive measures are of great importance to force a change in the criminals’ decision process and a simple benefit from a crime can illustrates the target that the criminals want. A potential target (product) needs to provide a good combination of profit and easiness to sell the products. The cost side of the criminal decision process can be simplified with theft preventive measures implemented by the different stakeholders within the supply chain. Categorization of criminals is essential in considering the fundamental variables such as the ability of criminals to organize a successful theft, within the supply chain.
Crime displacement theory is related to situational crime prevention based on the theoretical premise of rational choice (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Perpetrator or criminal while making a decision as to whether or not to commit a crime will be based on a range of several inputs. These include the effort involved and the potential gain, the degrees’ of peer support for the action, the risk of apprehension and punishment, and individual needs. The theory does not state that a criminal will commit a crime for every opportunity they encounter. Rather, the potential criminal makes a calculated decision about the opportunity to commit a crime (Lab, 2000). Bodman and Maultby (1997) explained that a criminal acts according to the rational choice theory, seek to maximize its utility with regards to time and resources available. While Crawford (1998) argued that the symptoms can be address by situational crime prevention addresses. It is not the cause of the crime and this will guide to an excessive trust in technology. Both of these criticisms are valid for the usage of situational crime prevention to hinder cargo theft. Clarke, (1992), Clarke and Homel (1997) basically, this is achieved by applying the following four prevention principles;
i.) increased perceived efforts;
ii.) increased perceived risks;
iii.) reducing anticipated rewards and;
iv.) inducing guilt or shame
A deeper understanding is required on the motives and modus operandi of the target groups of offenders which will provide a way of dealing with the limitations of the statistical search for crime displacement (Barr & Pease, 1990). Interviewing the offenders is not always possible but in some cases the insights on the motivation of the criminals and methods can be provided by closer analysis of the patterns of offenders. In this sense, Clarke (1992) has shown significant variances in the case of automobiles where the risks for different forms of theft, reflect the motives of the offenders. Cornish and Clarke (1987) found that new cars are mostly at risk of being stripped in the United States during the mid-1980s. Many European models with good audio equipment and joyriding American made muscle cars as well as those higher-prices luxury vehicles for re-sale targeted. This could explain the motives of the offenders. Under the dispositional assumptions of traditional criminological theory, situational variables merely determine the time and place of offense. As such, offenders may target for smaller criminal rewards if the alternatives are not feasible. Some offenders are so driven by needs or desires that they have to maintain a certain level of offending regardless of the cost. For many, the elimination of easy opportunities for crime may actually encourage them to explore other criminal alternatives. On the other hand, since crime is the product of purposive and sometimes inventive minds, displacement to other categories of offense or other areas are expected.
There are many examples of crime displacement being reported. A property marking program in Ottawa, Canada may have displaced burglaries from the homes of participants to those of non-participants (Gabor, 1990). Evidence has begun to accumulate of the successful application of situational measures with few displacement costs in accordance with the development of crime displacement analyses. Crime displacement has been studied in specific geographical areas (example, shopping centres, parking lots, housing estates and neighbourhoods). Crime prevention efforts do not try to change the root causes of crime and the criminals who deflected simply shift to other targets or places, severely limiting the net reduction in crime rate. Many researchers in criminology viewed crime displacement as the result of the implementation of effective measures against crime (Gabor; 1990, Ekwall; 2009, Cook & Mac Donald; 2010, Klaus; 2011). Gabor (1990) defined crime displacement as a change in criminal behaviour, along with illegitimate means, which is designed to get away with either specific preventive measures or more general conditions unfavourable to the criminal's usual mode of operating. For example, a burglar may move to a different housing area, used new tactics, and offend at a different time of the day. Only a few researchers acknowledged and suggested that given the extent to which different forms of displacement operate at the same time but difficult to confirm empirically on the status, magnitude and existence of crime displacement (Barr & Pease, 1992; Ekblom, 1989). Research conducted on crime displacement tends to assume the rational decision from criminals and guess that crime will likely to displace when other crime targets are more familiar to them (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Eck, 1993).
Crime displacement has been studied empirically in two different ways; by conducting ethnographic studies of criminals' motives and criminals’ decision-making processes whether to commit the crime or likewise; and by evaluating the impact of programs to reduce crime. Most studies of crime displacement take the latter approach, by evaluating the level or degree of displacement resulting from crime prevention implemented. If researchers noticed an increase in crime rates most probably they will assume that displacement has occurred due to the crime prevention measures being implemented effectively. There are possibilities of factors independent to the prevention measures contributed the increased crime rate such as changes in the offender population, the opportunities structure, or the overall trend of crime rates within the area. Only a few authors have stressed these other factors in their explanations of the displacement effects of crime prevention projects (Hakim & Rengert 1981; Barron, 1991). If these other factors are disregard by the researchers, the amount of crime being displaced may be overestimated. Crime displacement is indeed very complex and the level of displacement mainly depending on criminals resorting to any combination of alternative offenses, targets, methodology, timing, venues and various alternatives that are familiar to the criminals. In addition, researchers may mistakenly assume that a crime prevention effort may cause an increase in crime rates, when this causal relationship may in fact be spurious. Thus, crime displacement is difficult to predict and often impossible to measure but it is safe to assume that most preventive measures may potentially result in crime displacement. Crime displacement was not found in 22 studies but after reviewing 55 studies it was never 100 percent in the remaining studies (Gabor, 1990; Eck, 1993; Hesseling, 1994). Dingle (2005) in summarizing the crime displacement concluded that, if given a choice, criminals will choose the easiest method, and will choose to commit crimes that provide the least probability of getting caught.
It is very difficult to change peoples’ habit or routine in crime prevention. Cornish and Clarke (2003) developed situational crime prevention techniques which can be grouped into five categories such as:
i. Increasing the efforts,
ii. Increasing the risk,
iii. Reducing the rewards,
iv. Reducing the provocations, and
v. Removing the excuses
Increasing and implementation of crime preventive efforts techniques can be carried out by hardening the targets such access control, exits screening and other preventive measures to decrease the crime. Reduction of risk by extending the guardianship such as neighbourhood watch, assisting natural surveillance, and strengthening formal surveillance can make crime more difficult to happen. When the opportunity for burglary is blocked, burglar moves to another neighbourhood, but either the frequency of burglary is less than before or the new neighbourhood is less vulnerable than before is uncertain (Clarke & Weisburd, 1994). Barr & Pease (1990) argued that even if the crime displacement is mild; it spreads the burden of crime more equitable across the community or replaces more serious crime with a less serious one. Eck (1993) conducted 33 researches on crime intervention and displacements. He found displacement in 3 of the studies, 12 of them there were some displacement and in 18 of them, there was no displacement at all.
2.4.2 Strength of crime displacement theory
Crime prevention can be quite successful even when displacement is inevitable even there is no overall reduction in crime, but there are still some benefits. It ie very critical to identify that only effectiveness in crime prevention can be successful in ensuring crime displacement happened (Gabor, 1981& 1990; Barr & Pease, 1990). The advantages of displacement go well beyond this simple analogy. They range from the selfish to the selfless and extend benefits to the individual, the community and society as a whole. Crime displacement is of an extreme value to those who have avoided victimization as discussed by Sherman (1990), Barr and Pease (1990). A change in the landscape of crime will always be considered beneficial in most cases unless the nature of change places the threat of victimization further from one’s own life. The avoidance of crime can also be much more widespread, benefitting almost everyone, for at least a short time after the introduction of a crime control measure.
2.4.3 The weakness of crime displacement theory
There may be some weaknesses in crime displacement theory and displacement is necessary unfavourable due to the prevention strategies that cause it gives no overall crime reduction (Hakim & Rengert, 1981). It is also believed that displacement is inevitable. The negative aspects of displacement in combination with its inevitability are used to proof that right prevention strategies will be more effective alternatives (Reppetto, 1976). Effort has been made to show that crime displacement is not the inevitable as a result of crime preventives program (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Miethe, 1991). The weakness in crime displacement research is due to the difficulties in measuring the displacement itself. Even if displacement cannot be found in any study or research then the possibility it could have occurred in a direction that was not look into (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Crime displacement could also easily be concealed within the overall crime situation (Mayhew, 1988).
2.4.4 Crime Displacement Research Conducted
During 1990s the research related to crime displacement has been carried out in a more systematic manner. There were significant efforts on crime displacement being carried out in the United States (Eck, 1993) and also in Canada (Gabor, 1990) specifically looking into crime displacement. Eck (1993) suggested that crime displacement will occur if there is likely to be similar targets at adjacent areas. Even though the findings were rather positive but there were variation between different crimes. In the research on crime related to drug abuse that had been found to be susceptible to crime displacement (Rengert, 1990; Sherman, 1990; Caulkins, 1992; Eck 1993), which supported the views of Barr and Pease (1990) on crime displacement. In 1994, the Ministry of Justice in Holland has tasked Professor Rene B.P. Hesseling to conduct a research systematically by analyzing all the available literatures on crime prevention measures concentrating on crime displacement looking for its related evidences. This major task took him fourteen months by reviewing 55 published articles and research related to crime displacement. The summary of the research revealed that crime displacement is possible, but not an inevitable consequence of crime prevention (Hesseling, 1994). If crime displacement does occur then it will be limited to size and scope of the displacement. This conclusion is supported by other studies related this topic (Clarke, 1999) and criminologists have generally shown little interest in crime displacement prevention. This lack of interest stems from what was regarded as two mistakes of modern criminology. The first one is the problem of explaining crime that has been confused with the problem of explaining criminals. The other ones is the problem of controlling crime with that of dealing with criminals (Moss & Pease, 1999).
In 1999, evaluations were carried out by Building Research Establishment (BRE) (Pascoe, 1999), Gwent Police in South Wales (Brown, 1999) and Applied Criminology Group, University of Huddersfield (Armitage, 1999). The results of all three studies were very positive and the issue of crime displacement was discussed in depth. Although it is not specifically focused on crime displacement, the BRE reported that it has not displace crime to the neighbours and the report found no evidence of crime displacement from prevented burglary into other crime (Brown, 1999). The evidences from the broad based analysis suggested that there is a diffusion of benefits as opposed to crime displacement.
The implementation of policing effort will cause crime displacement which is largely based on unfounded hypothesis rather than empirical facts (Eck, 1993; Hesseling, 1994; Hill & Pease, 2001). Crime displacement is also unlikely in the aftermath of broader community development programs implemented (Roman, Cahill, Coggeshall, Lagerson, & Courtney, 2005; McLennan & Whitworth, 2008) and more focus crime policing that centred on crime prone areas (Braga, 1999; Weisburd, 2006; Braga, 2007). Spatial diffusion of benefits occurred more commonly than spatial displacement in the evaluation of the Weed and Seed program in Miami, Florida (Roman, 2005).
Crime displacement inevitably occurs in the aftermath of unsuccessful policing efforts due to unsupported suppositions rather than empirical facts. It is consistently found that found that crime displacement is the exception rather than the rule. The diffusion of benefits most probably will occur (Eck, 1993; Hesseling, 1994; Hill & Pease, 2001). Sometimes crime displacement occurred but tend to be less than the gains achieved by the response. It was found that both crime displacement and diffusion are equally likely to occur (Guerette & Bowers, 2008). In short, the responses were still beneficial on average (Guerette, Rob & Kate, 2009). Figure 2.11 presents some of the results from this analysis. Guerette, Rob & Kate (2009) summarized crime displacement tends be observed in 26 percent of the instances and diffusion is observed 27 percent of the time. Findings of the research concluded that temporal displacement is most common where it occurred 36 percent of the time, 33 percent for target displacement, 26 percent for offense displacement, 23 percent for spatial displacement and 22 percent for tactical displacement. As for diffusion it seems that spatial diffusion is the most common occurring 37 percent of the time, followed by target (24 percent), offense and temporal (each at 16 percent), and tactical (12 percent). Previous reviews of crime prevention evaluations also found that the extent of crime displacement is usually limited. One of the most comprehensive reviews of the extent of crime displacement conducted by Guerette and Bowers (2009) found that crime displacement and diffusion are equally likely to occur.
Table 2.11 Type of Crime Displacement and Diffusion
Study N = 102 Displacement Diffusion of Benefit
Type Examinations
Frequency (%)1 Observed
Frequency (%) 2 Observed
Frequency (%)
Spatial 272 (47%) 62 (23%) 100 (37%)
Offense 140 (24%) 36 (26%) 22(16%)
Target 80 (14%) 26 (33%) 19 (24%)
Tactical 49 (9%) 11 (22%) 6 (12%)
Temporal 31 (5%) 11 (36%) 5 (16%)
Total 5723 146 (26%) 152 (27%)
Source: Guerette, Rob, T. & Bowers, K.J. (2009). Assessing the extent of crime displacement and diffusion of benefits: A review of situational crime prevention evaluations, Criminology, 47(4), pp. 1331 – 1368
Footnote:
1. Column percentages are reported (e.g., percent of the overall number of inspections (n = 572).
2. Row percents are reported (e.g., percent of those inspections of specific displacement/diffusion type).
3. Does not equal the number of studies in the review (i.e. 102) since several studies examined multiple forms and multiple inspections of displacement/diffusion.
An evaluation of the New Deal for Communities (NDC) program in the United Kingdom found 23 percent spatial diffusion in 383 buffer zones evaluated while spatial crime displacement was observed in only 2 percent of the zones. Remaining 75 percent showed no signs of crime displacement or diffusion (McLennan & Whitworth, 2008).
A review of crime hot spots policing area and none of the review reported any substantial immediate spatial displacement of crime into areas surrounding the targeted locations in 5 studies and four other studies found possible diffusion effects (Braga, 2007). Research conducted to identify the presence of crime displacement in a problem-oriented policing project and found no significant crime displacement to the areas immediately surrounding the targeted places as reported by Braga and Bond (2008). It should be noted, however, that there may be times when crime displacement is simply undetectable. Criminals may relocate to other neighbourhood or change to other crimes from and the research findings reported above may undercount the true extent of crime displacement effects. Criminal’s familiarity with locations also provides lower risks to them because they can identify entry and exit points more readily which allow them to approach and leave crime scenes in shorter time. Criminals’ spatial familiarity is primarily determined by the known places and the surrounding area that they frequent as part of their normal living routines. This provides minimal effort for criminals while allowing them to commit crimes easily in their zone. For target and tactical crime displacement, familiarity means criminals are more likely to select similar target and use the same tactics they have used in former crimes. The criminals will not engage on targets they are not familiar. Most criminals acquired skill sets from peer groups and other delinquent associations as well as through their direct and indirect experiences of committing crime (Cornish, 1994). The use of existing skill sets is much less likely in the absence of other available crime targets. Highly motivated criminals may expend the effort to acquire new skill sets, but the more common opportunistic criminal is less likely to do so. The presence of crime opportunities also determines when and where crime displacement may occur as stipulated in Figure 2.12. Crime displacement is more likely to happen where there are suitable crime targets. This is contingent upon the criminals’ motivation and familiarity with the crime targets and tactics required to carry out the crime. Adjacent areas that have unprotected crime targets are more likely to experience some level of crime displacement compared to those that do not.
Predictors Factors How it relates to displacement
Offender Motivation Addiction
High Motivation (career offenders)
Low Motivation (opportunistic offenders)
Instrumental (motivated by money)
Expressive (usually violent or destructive) Likely to displace to other crimes that facilitate addiction.
More likely to displace than desist from crime. More likely to expend the effort to find new crime opportunities and/ or learn new skills.
More likely to desist from crime than displace. Less likely to expend the effort to find new crime opportunities and/ or learn new skills.
More likely to seek out other crime targets and types that provide similar monetary gain.
Usually highly contextual. Less likely to displace once situation is altered or remedied.
Offender Familiarity of other targets, locations or skill sets High/many
Low/few More likely to displace crime behaviour.
Less likely to displace or will take longer to do so.
Crime Opportunity Nearby
Distant More likely to displace crime behaviour.
Less likely to displace or will take longer to do so.
Figure 2.12 Predictors and factors of crime displacement
Source: Cornish, Derek B. (1994). The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention in Crime Prevention Studies, 3, Clarke, R.V. & Monsey (Eds.), New York, Criminal Justice Press.
2.4.5 Factors of crime displacement
Occurrence of crime displacement is largely determined by three factors; i) offenders motivation, ii) offenders familiarity and; iii) crime opportunity. Undecided criminals are more likely to search for other crime targets and types that provide similar monetary value (Guerette, Stenius & McGloin, 2005). Criminals will be more likely to change their modus operandi to crime targets, places, times, and tactics with which they are more comfortable. This means if crime displacement occurs; it is most likely to be close to the original crime location and involve similar targets and tactics. The probability of crime displacement is greatest when it is close to the original crime location and decreases as the distance from the response area increases as in stipulated in Figure 2.13 (Eck, 1993). Criminals are more likely to change their behaviour to crime targets, places, times, and tactics with the one which they are most familiar (Eck, 1993). Most criminals are more likely to commit crime in familiar areas because it poses greater risk and greater effort to familiarize themselves with the new areas. Distance from the original crime location increases the probability of unfamiliarity among criminals.
Figure 2.13 Familiarity Decay and Crime Displacement
Source: Eck, John E. (1993). The Threat of Crime Displacement,
Criminal Justice Abstracts, 25, 527-546.
Crime displacement is mainly determined by criminal motivation, criminal familiarity and crime opportunity. Criminal motivation determines which criminals and types of crimes to be displaced. Criminals driven by drug addiction are more likely to displace their crime behaviour to crime types and targets that facilitate their addiction. Opportunistic criminals will continue to be involved in crime after a response because their motivation is greater. Likewise, instrumental criminals (those motivated by monetary gain) are more likely to seek out other crime targets and types that provide similar monetary gain (Guerette et al., 2005).
Different crimes present different costs, efforts, and rewards as there are many instances where displacing crime behaviour is not worthwhile for the criminals. It is noted that criminals will displace their criminal behaviour when the risks and effort of committing new crimes are worth the returns on investment (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Normally opportunities to commit crime are unevenly distributed across time and location. The other aspect needs to be considered where crime opportunities are blocked then committing other crimes is likely to happen. Blocking crime opportunities can make it more appealing for individuals to satisfy their needs through legitimate activities. A criminal’s decision as to whether to displace his crime behaviour in the aftermath of a response is shaped by the variety of circumstances found among other crime types, targets, times, tactics, and places (Cornish & Clarke, 1987). If criminal knowledge is limited of knowing the way to commit the crime then crime displacements likely will not happen. This means the criminal may not be well versed with the skill or tactic to commit that crime. Criminals are also less likely to commit crimes in location where they are not familiar. Some criminals have limited time to commit crime and thus, crime may not occur if preventive measure is able to delay the crime from happening. Displacement exists in thirty-three of the studies reviewed by Hesseling (1994), even though it is very small in scale. Sometimes crime may not be displaced due to the opportunity theory and the importance of which has long been underestimated. Secondly, consistent research findings into the distances overwhelmingly travelled by criminals to offend will explain why prevented crime is not displaced.
2.4.6 Other theories related to crime displacement
Three recent theoretical perspectives: 1) rational choice, 2) routine activity theory, 3) crime pattern theory; have influenced the understanding of the importance of place in crime prevention efforts (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Rational choice perspective provides the basic rationale for defining place as essential. Some expert claims that this perspective is to some degree not tested, while others have demonstrated that it is possible to test various forms of rational choice (Hogarth & Reder, 1981).
Routine activity theory explained the occurrence of crime seeries as the confluence of various situations (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1994). Firstly, there must be a motivated criminal in order for crime to happen. The explanation of the development of motivated criminals is the goal of criminal theories. Second, there must be a desirable target. Third, the target and the criminal must be at the same place and at the same time. Finally, three other types of controllers: 1) intimate handlers, 2) guardians and; 3) place managers; must be absent or ineffective in order for crime to occur, guardian must be absent, negligent or ineffective as discussed by Eck (1994).
Crime pattern theory is particularly important in developing an understanding of crime and place because it combines rational choice and routine activity theory in aid of explaining the distribution of crime across places. The distribution of criminals, targets, handlers, guardians, and managers over time and place will describe crime patterns. The rapid changes in society have caused the increased of potential targets while separating them from the people who can protect them. Reasonably rational criminals, while engaging in their routine activities, will look for places without guardians and managers and where their handlers are unlikely to show up. Pattern theory explores the interactions of criminals with their physical and social environments that influence criminals' choices of targets. Crime pattern theory explained how targets come to the attention of criminal’s influences the distribution of crime events over time, space, and among targets as revealed by Brantingham and Brantingham (1993). It will only occur when criminals engaged in routine activities. It is the same as non-criminal individuals, criminals move among the surrounding of the home, school, work, shopping, and leisure. As criminal conduct their normal legitimate activities regularly, then they become more aware and discovered criminal opportunities. Criminal opportunities that are not near the areas offenders routinely move through are unlikely to come to their attention. A given criminal will be aware of only a subset of the possible targets. The crime opportunities found at places that come to the attention of criminals have an increased risk of becoming targets (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993). Some criminals may seek out very aggressively to unknown location while most of them will conduct their searches within the areas as they become familiar through non-criminal activities.
The concept of place is essential to crime pattern theory as the places are logically required then their characteristics will influence the likelihood of committing a crime. Place characteristics highlighted by routine activity theory include the presence and effectiveness of managers and the presence of capable guardians. Crime pattern theory links places with desirable targets and the context within which they are found by focussing on how places come to the attention of potential criminals. Although crime displacement theory, crime pattern theory and routine activity theory are mutually supportive in many aspects but they give different explanations of crime at specific locations. A crime pattern theorist would focus on how criminals discover and gain access to the place as for a given set of high-crime locations. A routine activity theorist would focus instead on the behaviours of the targets and the possible absence of controllers whose presence could have prevented the offenses from taking place; namely the guardians, handlers and place managers. Crime displacement theory looks at the possibility of crime being shifted or displaced to other location. In other words, places are problematic because of their location and relationship to the environment for the crime pattern theorist. As for the routine activity theorist, places are problematic due to the absence and presence of the types of people at the location. On the other hand, for a crime displacement theorist, crime will be displaced. Clearly all the explanations can be valid in different contexts and situations. Crime specific explanations may show some events and crime pattern theory is a useful explanation, for other events routine activity theory offers greater insights, and for still a third group of events some combination of the two theories is required.
Crime displacement theory looks at the possibility of crime being shifted or displaced to other location. In other words, places are problematic because of their location and relationship to the environment for the crime pattern theorist (Ching-EL, 2014b). As for the routine activity theorist, places are problematic due to the absence and presence of the types of people at the location. On the other hand, for a crime displacement theorist, crime will be displaced. Clearly all the explanations can be valid in different contexts and situations.
2.4.7 Crime displacement within the supply chain
Theft opportunities which are highly specific and concentrated in time and place within the supply chain are causing the risk of cargo crime and the risk can be reduced by implementing crime preventive control measures. The control measures are put into practice as to induce a change in the characteristics of cargo crime opportunities and eventually changed the outcome of a criminal decision process. If the potential criminal can change their decision on the target, method, place and time then they will do so within their own capability and the crime will be displaced. A model on crime displacement impact cargo crime needs to begin with the supply chain concept. This is the system context for the model, which means that the supply chain is elucidated with the needs for logistics fulfilment. The elements of crime theory can be used as a foundation for all crimes against supply chain activities worldwide. However, the elements of crime are limited to time, place and motivation in reality. The smaller parts of the global flow of cargo examined and it is less likely for the crime displacement theory to be valid. This is due to the limitations addressed with the assumptions of crime displacement as a reliable explanation about changes in cargo crime characteristics. The practical restraint involves daily business cannot be underestimated.
The management approach in reducing the impact of cargo crime is known as transportation security. Transportation security involve the interaction between physical security control measures and the intervention of humans with the intention of reducing theft, sabotage and other types of crime (EC, 2003; Ekblom, 2007). There are many preventive measures which can be used to reduce the risk of cargo crime but it is important to use it effectively (Mayhew, 2001). These control measures include premises fences, locks, seal, security guards and other types of security systems (Clarke & Homel, 1997). Ekwall (2013) found 97 per cent of all attacks by criminal occurred at vehicle stop area occurred at non-secured parking locations. Cargo crime at non-secured parking locations is more of a volume crime than a high impact cargo crime. The objectives for these types of control measures are to ensure the theft or crime is more difficult to happen. The next important control measures looks into the control and targeting the internal theft problem. Trust of employees in the company can be subdivided in two areas that is the present employees’ supervision (Mayhew, 2001) and new employee reference checks (Muir, 1996). These methods are not sufficient without security plans (EC, 2003), risk assessment and employee education (Mayhew, 2001) to reduce the risk of cargo crime. The complexity of supply chain requires the need for security counter measures to be implemented in different type and method. This approach is to reduce factors specific to different types of crimes, locations and situations (Ekblom, 2007). We need to recognize that crime often reflects the risk, effort and payoff to the criminals (Clarke, 1995).