Heritage Crime pp 107-127 | Cite as

A Situational Approach to Heritage Crime Prevention



We have seen earlier in this book the range and consequences of the phenomena which have come to be collectively labelled as ‘heritage crime’. This chapter takes as read, therefore, the recognition of the special importance of the protection of heritage assets being an irreplaceable part of a country’s narrative. The focus in this chapter is on reducing the risk of damage to or loss of heritage assets by the use of situational crime prevention. While the primary focus of this chapter is on the UK context, many of the techniques we outline should be transferable to other jurisdictions. We attempt to address crime against heritage assets including, for example, considerations of the prevention of criminal damage, arson, anti-social behaviour and theft. Our central argument is that the difference between heritage crime and other volume crime lies in the consequences of loss or damage rather than in the strategy and tactics of crime prevention. The rich literature on situational prevention may thus be freely accessed in pursuit of the reduction of heritage crime. The single exception in the situational reduction armoury which is denied to keepers of many heritage assets is the separation of assets from the public, which will include motivated offenders. Such denial of access defeats the whole purpose of maintaining heritage assets.


Crime Prevention Heritage Site Crime Reduction Situational Crime Prevention Motivate Offender 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernasco, W. (2008) ‘Them Again? Same-Offender Involvement in Repeat and Near Repeat Burglaries’. European Journal of Criminology, 5(4), 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brantingham, P. and Faust, R (1976) ‘A Conceptual Model of Crime Prevention’, Crime and Delinquency, 22, 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, R. V. G. (1999) Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating and Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods (London: Home Office).Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, R. V. (2002) ‘Situational Prevention, Criminology, and Social Values’, in A. von Hirsch, D. Garland and A. Wakefield (eds) Ethical and Social Perspectives on Situational Crime Prevention (Oxford: Hart Publishing), pp. 97–112.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, R. V. and Eck, J. (2005) Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice).Google Scholar
  6. Cornish, D. B. and Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, 16, 41–96.Google Scholar
  7. English Heritage (2013) Heritage Crime Prevention Measures: A Guide for Owners, Tenants and Managers of Heritage Assets (London: English Heritage).Google Scholar
  8. Grove, L., Farrell, G., Fanington, D. F. and Johnson, S. D. (2012) Preventing Repeat Victimization: A Systematic Review (Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention).Google Scholar
  9. Grove, L. (2013a) ‘Reducing the Opportunities for Heritage Crime’, Conservation Bulletin, 70, 18–20.Google Scholar
  10. Grove, L. (2013b) ‘Heritocide? Defining and Exploring Heritage Crime’, Public Archaeology. 12(4).Google Scholar
  11. Garwood, J., Rogerson, M. and Pease, K. (2000) ‘Sneaky Measurement of Crime and Disorder’, in V. Ju, P. Davies and P. Francis (eds) Doing Criminological Research (Thousand Oaks: Sage), pp. 157–167.Google Scholar
  12. Guerette, R. and Bowers, K. (2009) ‘Assessing the Extent of Crime Displacement and Diffusion of Benefits: A Review of Situational Crime Prevention Evaluations’, Criminology, 47, 1331–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IRM (2011) ‘Risk Appetite and Tolerance: A Guidance Paper’. Available at:, date accessed 31 January 2014.
  14. Johnson, S. and Bowers, K. (2003) ‘Opportunity is in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Publicity in Crime Prevention’, Criminology & Public Policy, 2(3), 497–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lab, S. P. (2010) Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices and Evaluations (7th ed) (New York: Anderson Publishing).Google Scholar
  16. Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  17. Smith, M., Clarke, R. and Pease, K. (2002) ‘Anticipatory Benefits in Crime Prevention’, Crime Prevention Studies, 13, 71–88.Google Scholar
  18. Sutton, M., Schneider, J. and Hetherington, S. (2001) Tackling Theft With the Market Reduction Approach (London: Home Office).Google Scholar
  19. Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Cambridge, MA: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  20. Thaler, R., Sunstein, C. and Balz, J. (2010) Choice Architecture. Available at SSRN 1583509.Google Scholar
  21. Tilley, N. (2009) Crime Prevention (Cullompton: Willan).Google Scholar
  22. War Memorials Trust (2014) ‘In Memoriam 2014’, available at:, date accessed 31 Jan 2014.
  23. Weisel, D. L. (2002) Graffiti: Problem Oriented Guides for Police Series no. 9 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice).Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. L. (1982) ‘Broken Windows’, Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.Google Scholar
  25. Wortley, R. (2001) ‘A Classification of Techniques for Controlling Situational Precipitators of Crime’, Security journal, 14(4), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Louise Grove and Ken Pease 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jill Dando InstituteUniversity College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations