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). But 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) and 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 main reason of 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), or the crime displacement could 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 effort on crime displacement being carried out in Canada (Gabor, 1990) and the United States (Eck, 1993) 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). Some times 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.