Reppetto (1976) published crime displacement theory in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency and 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:
• geographical displacement – crime can be moved from one location to another which can be identified
• temporal displacement – crime can be moved from one time to another
• target displacement – crime can be directed away from one target to another
• tactical displacement – one method of committing crime can be substituted for another
• crime type displacement – one kind of crime can be substituted for another
Clark (1998) suggested that crime can be reduced by the following: (1) opportunity-reducing measures by analyzing the specific crimes; (2) design the place which makes crime difficult to occur, (3) make the crime itself 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 in their mobility, adaptability and flexibility, relative to a particular crime, place, 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. An often-stated opinion about crime displacement is that the theory, its practical usages, can induce a sense of disbelief towards crime prevention initiatives (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:
– Criminals prevented or stopped in one location can find another.
– Common sense is a valuable commodity, but it has its limitations and changes with time.
– Total displacement and partial displacement are different and the usage of common sense is more attracted to the idea of total displacement.
The theory of crime displacement states that rational thinking criminals with crime mobility will alter their criminal behaviour in response to crime prevention efforts (Lab, 2000). The objective is to reduce crime opportunities which will lead to a change in all potential theft situations. Therefore, crime displacement is a valid theory.
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 flexibility to exploit the weakest link in the chain, the criminal will try their best to commit the crime (Ekwall & Lumsden, 2007). It is the criminals’ ability to organize a successful theft, within the logistics network that could categorize that. The crime preventive measures are of great importance to force a change in the criminals’ decision process. 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). An individual or criminal makes a decision as to whether or not to commit an offence based on a range of inputs. These include the effort involved, the potential payoff, 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). A criminal acts according to the rational choice theory, seek to maximize its utility with regards to time and resources available (Bodman & Maultby, 1997). Situational crime prevention addresses the symptoms but not the cause of the crime. This can lead to an excessive trust in technology (Crawford, 1998). Both of these criticisms are valid for the usage of situational crime prevention to hinder cargo theft. 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 (Clarke, 1992; Clarke & Homel, 1997). The different situational crime prevention principles are used to different degrees in the crime prevention measures within the supply chain.
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). It may not always be possible to interview the offenders, but in some cases insights on the motivation 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, it may be impossible to confirm empirically the existence or magnitude of displacement (Barr & Pease, 1992; Ekblom, 1989). Research on crime displacement tends to assume rational decision making from the criminals. Criminals are most likely to displace when other crime targets are 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, evaluating the amount of displacement resulting from a crime prevention measure by examining crime rates in adjacent areas or for other offenses. If researchers observed an increase in crime rates, they typically assume that displacement has occurred and the result of the crime prevention measures being effectively implemented. 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 highly complex and the amount of displacement may depend on whether criminals resort to any combination of alternative targets, times, places, methods, and offenses, and whether these alternatives 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 the efforts techniques can be carried out by hardening the targets such as implementation of access control points, screening of exits, and other tools and weapon used 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). Crime prevention efforts are supported by the argument that even if the displacement is mild; it spreads the burden of crime more equitable across the community or replaces more serious crime with a less serious one (Barr & Pease, 1990). Eck (1993) summarized 33 crime prevention interventions and displacement in those studies. In 3 of these studies evidence of much displacement was found; in 12 of them there were some displacement; and in 18 of them, there was no displacement (Eck, 1993).