Advertisement

Retail Crime pp 123-154 | Cite as

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Retail Crime: Exploring Offender Perspectives on Risk and Protective Factors in the Design and Layout of Retail Environments

  • Rachel Armitage
  • Chris Joyce
  • Leanne Monchuk
Chapter
Part of the Crime Prevention and Security Management book series (CPSM)

Abstract

There is little doubt that the design of the built environment influences offender decision-making. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a crime reduction approach that aims to prevent crime though the design (pre-build) or manipulation (post-build) of the built environment. CPTED is based upon a set of principles that include movement control, surveillance, defensible space and physical security, and research (see Armitage, Crime Prevention Through Housing Design: Policy and Practice. Crime Prevention and Security Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 for overview) has demonstrated the effectiveness of CPTED in reducing crimes such as burglary within the residential environment. This research explores the extent to which CPTED (and other design related) measures can be used to reduce shoplifting within a retail environment—namely two major supermarket chains in England. The results reveal that the principles of CPTED are relevant within the retail environment and that offenders are deterred by these features, in particular, where these principles result in an immediate (as opposed to delayed) detection or apprehension. Whilst the research is conducted in supermarkets within England, the conclusions are internationally relevant and can be transferred to many different retail environments.

Keywords

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Shoplifting Retail crime Crime prevention Supermarkets 

References

  1. Armitage, R. (2013). Crime Prevention Through Housing Design: Policy and Practice. Crime Prevention and Security Management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage, R. (2017). Burglars’ Take on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Security Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-017-0101-6
  3. Armitage, R., & Joyce, C. (in press). “Why My House?”—Exploring the Influence of Residential Housing Design on Burglar Decision Making. In R. Armitage & P. Ekblom (Eds.), Re-Building Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Armitage, R., & Monchuk, L. (2011). Sustaining the Crime Reduction Impact of Secured by Design: 1999 to 2009. Security Journal, 24(4), 320–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage, R., & Monchuk, L. (in press). What is CPTED? Reconnecting Theory with Application in the Words of Users and Abusers. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. Google Scholar
  6. Bamfield, J. (2005). Electronic Article Surveillance: Management Learning in Curbing Theft. In M. Gill (Ed.), Crime at Work (pp. 156–174). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, A., & Palmer, W. (2011). The Importance of Visual Situational Cues and Difficulty of Removal in Creating Deterrence: The Limitations of Electronic Article Surveillance Source Tagging in the Retail Environment. Journal of Applied Security Research, 6(1), 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck, A., & Willis, A. (1999). Context-Specific Measures of CCTV Effectiveness in the Retail Sector. In K. Painter & N. Tilley (Eds.), Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 10 (pp. 251–269). New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bernasco, W. (2010). Learning About Crime from Criminals: Editors’ Introduction. In W. Bernasco (Ed.), Offenders on Offending: Learning About Crime from Criminals (pp. 3–12). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. British Retail Consortium. (2017). 2016 Retail Crime Survey. Resource Document. British Retail Consortium. Retrieved October 2, 2017, from https://brc.org.uk/media/116322/10081-brc-retail-crime-survey-2016_v6.pdf
  11. Cardone, C., & Hayes, R. (2012). Shoplifter Perceptions of Store Environments: An Analysis of How Physical Cues in the Retail Interior Shape Shoplifter Behaviour. Journal of Applied Security Research, 7(1), 22–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carmel-Gilfilen, C. (2011). Advancing Retail Security Design: Uncovering Shoplifter Perceptions of the Physical Environment. Journal of Interior Design, 36(2), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, R. (1999). Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating and Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods. Police Research Series, Paper 112. London: Home Office, Research Development and Statistics Directorate.Google Scholar
  14. Clarke, R., & Petrossian, G. (2013). Shoplifting. Washington: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Copes, H., & Hochstetler, A. (2014). Consenting to Talk: Why Inmates Participate in Prison Research. In P. Cromwell & M. Birzer (Eds.), In Their Own Words: Criminals on Crime (pp. 19–33). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (2008). The Rational Choice Perspective. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (pp. 21–47). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Cornish, D., & Clarke, V. (Eds.). (1986). The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspective on Offending. New York: Springer-Verlang.Google Scholar
  19. Cozens, P., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dabney, D., Hollinger, R., & Dugan, L. (2004). Who Actually Steals? A Study of Covertly Observed Shoplifters. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 693–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deakin, J., Smithson, H., Spencer, J., & Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Taxing on the Streets: Understanding the Methods and Process of Street Robber. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 9(1), 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elffers, H. (2010). Misinformation, Misunderstanding and Misleading as Validity Threats to Offenders’ Accounts of Offending. In W. Bernasco (Ed.), Offenders on Offending: Learning About Crime from Criminals (pp. 13–22). Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Gill, M. (2007). Shoplifters on Shop Theft: Implications for Retailers. Leicester: Perpetuity Research & Consultancy International (PRCI) Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Gill, M. (2017). Learning from Offenders. Some Iatrogenic Effect of Crime Prevention Measures. In B. LeClerc & E. U. Savona (Eds.), Crime Prevention in the 21st Century (pp. 35–45). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gill, M., Bilby, C., & Turbin, V. (1999). Retail Security: Understanding What Deters Shop Thieves. Journal of Security Administration, 22(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes, R., & Blackwood, R. (2006). Evaluating the Effects of EAS on Product Sales and Loss: Results of a Large-Scale Field Experiment. Security Journal, 19(4), 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hunter, J., Garius, L., Hamilton, P., & Wahidin, A. (2017). Who Steals from Shops, and Why? A Case Study of Prolific Shop Theft Offenders (in this book).Google Scholar
  28. Jacobs, B., & Wright, R. (2008). Moralistic Street Robbery. Crime and Delinquency, 54(4), 511–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kajalo, S., & Lindblom, A. (2010). The Perceived Effectiveness of Surveillance in Reducing Crime at Shopping Centres in Finland. Property Management, 28(1), 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Victim and Perpetrator Accounts of Interpersonal Transgressions: Self-Serving or Relationship-Serving Biases? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lasky, N., Fisher, B., & Jacques, S. (2017). ‘Thinking Thief’ in the Crime Prevention Arms Race: Lessons Learned from Shoplifters. Security Journal, 30(3), 772–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lasky, N., Jacques, S., & Fisher, B. (2015). Glossing over Shoplifting: How Thieves Act Normal. Deviant Behavior, 36(4), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miethe, T. D., & McCorkle, R. C. (2001). Crime Profiles: The Anatomy of Dangerous Persons, Places and Situations. Los Angeles: Roxbury.Google Scholar
  34. Nee, C. (2003). Research on Burglary at the End of the Millennium: A Grounded Approach to Understanding Crime. Security Journal, 16(3), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert Decision Making in Burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poyser, S. (2004). Shopping Centre Design, Decline and Crime. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 7(2), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaw, M., & Pease, K. (2000). Research on Repeat Victimisation in Scotland: Final Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.Google Scholar
  38. Sidebottom, A., & Tilley, N. (2017). Towards a Theory of Tagging in Retail Environments (in this book).Google Scholar
  39. Taylor, E. (2017). PAUSED for Thought? Using Verbal Protocol Analysis to Understand Situational and Temporal Cues in the Decision-Making of Residential Burglars. Security Journal.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-017-0104-3
  40. van Gelder, J.-L., Nee, C., Otte, M., van Sintemaartensdijk, I., Demetriou, A., & van Prooijen, J. W. (2017). Virtual Burglary: Exploring the Potential of Virtual Reality to Study Burglary in Action. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(1), 29–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rachel Armitage
    • 1
  • Chris Joyce
    • 2
  • Leanne Monchuk
    • 3
  1. 1.Secure Societies InstituteUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK
  2. 2.West Yorkshire PoliceWakefieldUK
  3. 3.Applied Criminology & Policing CentreUniversity of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations