Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Innovation and Crime Prevention

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_588



The UK Cox Report on creativity in business (HM Treasury 2005: 2) identifies three key interlinked terms:

“Creativity” is the generation of new ideas – either new ways of looking at existing problems or of seeing new opportunities, perhaps by exploiting emerging technologies or changes in markets.

“Innovation” is the successful exploitation of new ideas. It is the process that carries them through to new products, new services, new ways of running the business, or even new ways of doing business.

“Design” is what links creativity and innovation. It shapes ideas to become practical and attractive propositions for users or customers. Design may be described as creativity deployed to a specific end.

Innovation, creativity, and design of course occur not just in the scientific and technological domains but also in the social, institutional, economic, environmental, commercial, and legal domains. And...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Armitage R (2012) Making a brave transition from research to reality. In: Ekblom P (ed) Design against crime: crime proofing everyday objects. Crime prevention studies 27. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell DT (1969) Reforms as experiments. Am Psychol 24:409–429Google Scholar
  3. Chapman J (2004) System failure: why governments must learn to think differently. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesbrough H (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke R, Harris, P (1992) Auto theft and its prevention. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research 16. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke R, Newman G (2006) Outsmarting the terrorists. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen L, Vila B, Machalek R (1995) Expropriative crime and crime policy: an evolutionary ecological analysis. Stud Crime Crime Prev 4:197–219Google Scholar
  8. Collins B, Mansell R (2004) Cyber trust and crime prevention: a synthesis of the state-of-the-art science reviews. Department for Business Innovation and Skills, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornish D (1994) The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational prevention. In: Clarke R (ed) Crime prevention studies 3. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  10. Cropley D, Cropley A, Kaufman J, Runco M (2010) The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekblom P (1997) Gearing up against crime: a dynamic framework to help designers keep up with the adaptive criminal in a changing world. Int J Risk Secur Crime Prev 2:249–265Google Scholar
  12. Ekblom P (1999) Can we make crime prevention adaptive by learning from other evolutionary struggles? Stud Crime Crime Prev 8(1):27–51Google Scholar
  13. Ekblom P (2005) Designing products against crime. In: Tilley N (ed) Handbook of crime prevention and community safety. Cullompton, WillanGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekblom P (2010) The conjunction of criminal opportunity theory. Sage Encycl Victimol Crime Prev 1:139–146Google Scholar
  15. Ekblom P (2011) Crime prevention, security and community safety using the 5Is framework. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  16. Ekblom P (2012) The security function framework”; and “conclusion”. In: Ekblom P (ed) Design against crime: crime proofing everyday objects. Lynne Rienner, Boulder ColGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekblom P, Pease K (1995) Evaluating crime prevention. In: Tonry M, Farrington D (eds) Building a safer society: strategic approaches to crime prevention, crime and justice. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekblom P, Tilley N (2000) Going equipped: criminology, situational crime prevention and the resourceful offender. Brit J Criminol 40:376–398Google Scholar
  19. Farrell G, Tilley N, Tseloni A, Mailley J (2008) The crime drop and the security hypothesis. Brit Soc Criminol Newslett 62:17–21Google Scholar
  20. Farrell G, Tseloni A, Mailley J, Tilley N (2011) The crime drop and the security hypothesis. J Res Crime Delinquen 48:147–175Google Scholar
  21. Gamman L, Raein M (2010) Reviewing the art of crime: what, if anything, do criminals and artists/designers have in common? In: Cropley D, Cropley A, Kaufman J, Runco M (eds) The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson J (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Lingenfelter R (1986) Death Valley and the Amargosa: a land of illusion. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneier B (2012) Liars and outliers: enabling the trust that society needs to thrive. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJGoogle Scholar
  25. Shover N (1996) Great pretenders: pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Harper Collins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor M, Currie M (2012) Terrorism and affordance. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. van Dijk J, Manchin R, Nevala S, Hideg G (2007) The burden of crime in the EU. EU, ICSGoogle Scholar
  28. Walsh D (1994) The obsolescence of crime forms. In: Clarke RV (ed) Crime prevention studies, vol 2. Willow Tree Press, Monsey, pp 149–163Google Scholar
  29. White M (1998) Isaac Newton: the last sorcerer. Fourth Estate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Wortley R (2008) Situational precipitators of crime. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan, CullomptonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Design Against Crime Research Centre, Central Saint Martins College of Arts and DesignUniversity of the Arts, LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Jill Dando InstituteUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK