This discourage an offender to conduct an offence.

 This school of thought in criminology
concerns primarily with how a crime takes place regardless of the motivations
of the offender or the circumstances that created an offender in the first
place. In other words, Wortley & Mazerolle, 2009 suggest that environmental
criminology is more concerned with methods that can discourage an offender to
conduct an offence. In this, it focuses on the event of crime and the factors
other than the offender. The underlying assumption in environmental
criminology is that an offender would, like anyone else, follow a rational
order of logic when deciding whether to commit a crime. In order to capture
variety of situations where an offender may choose to deploy different methods,
three main theories have been developed. These theories include routine
activity theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory.  This theory is essentially the backbone to
environmental criminology. According to this approach, any crime can only be
taken place once three elements are present altogether at the same time and
place. These elements include an agent who carries out the offence, or a
would-be offender, suitable target (mostly a property), and the lack of capable
guardians. Felson believes that by altering any of these three elements, the
combination for a potential crime is decreased, and most likely is completely
removed. It appears that this approach highlights
the habits of people in the modern time and age, which are mostly inevitable.
For instance, the need for most couples to spend several hours each day from
home at the time, increases the vulnerability of their home to burglary. In
terms of safety risks against persons, it could be when a commuter changes the
mode of transport at times when there are minimal or none activity in the area
they visit after dark.The key assumption in this approach is that
a would-be offender is already charged to carry out the crime and the
intervention with them to reduce or remove the risk will not be effective. Such
assumption, immediately focuses on other elements that could facilitate a
criminal activity. In this theory, the act of crime is de-personalised and the
focus is being paid to either increase effective guardianship of the area or
rendering the target as an unsuitable target.As a result, this approach inherently
focuses on reducing or removing the would-be offender or increase the
guardianship so that the same person cannot take advantage of the situation.
What this approach implies is that the criminal activity is inevitable as the
would-be offender will eventually exploit the situation to their benefit. This
approach rather concerns with the victim of crime in a given situation, and
focuses to change the setting so that even a would-be offender cannot take
advantage of the situation. As discussed earlier, this theory is less
concerned neither about the offender nor about their motivation. Consequently,
this approach attracted criticism on these aspects.the intentional use of the term target
instead of victim stemmed from the wide-applicability of the theory to
different situations whether a person or their property were violated by an
offender. although it appeared that it was not the
intention of the theory to dehumanise a person who had been a victim of crime,
stronger preference to ‘how’ the incident was happened is reiterated than the
‘who’ or ‘why’ The routine activity theory shifts the
focus from the criminal to the victim of the crime. In doing that, it distances
itself from the common criminology approaches that primarily focus on the
motivations for a crime so that they can adopt an appropriate preventative
approach. This different lens to preventing crime has had its critics such as
and . Being subjected to criticism, the theory
has been evolved to become more precise about the required elements for a
criminal act to happen. The revision of the theory introduced another layer of
factors that can influence the likelihood of a crime to happen. The initial revision of the theory aimed to
highlight the importance of the physical space in which crime occurs. It is,
rightly, asserted that for any crime to take place, it needs both offender and
victim to be present at a particular location. Given the particular importance
given to place in this theory, it became in focus of manipulation to remove
opportunities for crime. The revision introduced a new layer on top of the main
three components, required for a crime to happen, as controllers which each can
influence one of those elements to eventually prevent crime.What these controllers emphasised was
extending the notion of guardianship from the previous version of the theory.
In the earlier version, as discussed above, a guardian comprises of any
individual whose presence would increase the risks of detection for the
criminal or intervention in the act of crime, either or both of which would
deter a would-be criminal. In that iteration, the extension of the guardian
influence was limited to protecting the ‘target’ from being targeted. However,
the revision of the theory acknowledged the narrow focus of the role of
‘guardianship’ in preventing crime. It introduced new layers of guardians, not
only for the target, but also for the offender and the place as well. This
implied a further role for others to play to prevent crime, which essentially
shared the responsibility to prevent crime. The shared responsibility would, in
theory, increase the intervention points where an opportunity crime could be
curbed.  The handler, who can assert control over a
would-be offender requires to have a strong personal bond as this would be the
only leverage to have on a person and impair their motivation for a criminal
act.  In order to prevent a crime, all the three
controllers should be able to practice their influence. As F & B discuss,
all of those three elements must be absent or compromised to a degree where an
act of crime can happen by a motivated offender on a chosen victim in a given
place.However, all the intentions for preventing
a crime incident does not necessarily happen on themselves. As Sampson et al
writes the controllers need to be incentivised to actually be successful
agents. Sampsons call these controllers as super controllers that in fact
control the controllers. Similarly, the super controllers can be found in three
forms of formal, diffuse, and personal super controllers. Organisations can be
formal super controllers and political institutions as diffuse super
controllers.  What is widely recognised as the routine
activity theory is actually the revised version of it. Its popularily,
especially among crime prevention practitioners, is due to the pragmatism it
provides to prevention methods. The three contributing factors are also called
the crime triangle, which any control over the factors, through the
controllers, can prevent crime. Reportedly, the police force is a huge keen in
utilising this theory as it facilitates their tasks to identify an intervention
with a promise of containing an issue mostly independent of the offender(s).B & B assert that crime is a factor to
battle crime prevention countris.According to the B&B, criminal
activities do not usually occur in places where had booked under a wrong
account.They also believe that crime only takes
place in locations where potential victims congregate with the would-be offenders
at a same place. The routine activities theory is capable to explain this
phenomenon.With increased number of people present in
a location, the likelihood of act of crime increases. This assumption is based
on the routine activity theory which suggests that major nodes, pathways, and
the like are of the highest risk places where crime occurs in places where
majority of The cluster of crimes tends to render
themselves as places with higher likelihood of criminal incident.  a particular event given the necessary
information are already provided.This theory identifies three main aspects
of the public realm to be clusters where higher intensity of criminal acts
happen. These locations include nodes, where people attend to take part in an
activity or simply reside. Paths, which are the routes where people get to and
from a node. The last is edges, which essentially surround nodes and paths.
Edges define particular areas, but they do not necessarily should be realised
in physical forms. Intangible edges are still as effective as the tangible
edges. They can define boundaries for a neighbourhood towards which a person
can feel a sense of belonging. the potential impact of this feeling or the lack
thereof can influence the sense of safety in an area. B & B state that this
quality can function as a coercive element on how they behave in a place.The focus on the immediate surrounds of
such places should not detract from the importance to capturing the wider
context to understand criminal incidents. This approach helps to realise what
characteristics are shared between places. By isolating the type of criminal
activities and examination of broader shared characteristics of places, it is
expected to have correlation between spatial setting and incidents of crime
emerge. The accumulation of such information not only informs a more effective
intervention to resolve crime issues, but also enables the prediction of
spatial and temporal likelihood of crime. This is the information that the
authorities such as the police find extremely useful. With the help of such
information, they can utilise their resources more efficiently to prevent crime
incidents. It also assists other authorities who are responsible for the
maintenance and upgrade of public spaces to have better informed decision on
the extent and location of interventions. The crime pattern theory categorises places
with crime issues into two groups. They are either crime generators or crime
attractors. Crime generators are places where accommodate large groups of
people at a same time for any sort of legitimate activities. This should happen
for crime to happen by bringing different elements, such as big crowds,
together. On the other hand, crime attractors are places where provide ample
opportunities for a would-be criminal to utilise the opportunity. The
categorisation of places into crime generator or attractor are not absolute. In
fact, a place can be a crime generator at a time and a crime attractor at
another time, or sometimes both of them at the same time. For example, the
on-licensed facilities (such as bars or pubs) attract more people at nights at
weekends in summer time. For the early hours of the evening they may only be a
crime generator as they attract many people, but towards the late in the night
and early hours in the morning, they may categorised as crime attractors as
their patrons are more likely to be under the influence of alcohol, which makes
them more vulnerable to be victimised –or even commit a criminal act.Despite this example, the crime pattern
theory is rather focused on location than time. The lack of adequate attention
to the role that time can play relevant to crime incidents, and potentially
crime patterns, presents some limitations to apply this theory holistically.
Temporality plays a significant role in the function of a place as it indicates
which user groups are more likely to use a place and for what purposes.The single focus on place renders a risk
where the theory may overlook the influence of other factors relevant to crime.
For instance, public spaces are meant to be occupied by the public at different
time during day and night to foster social life. this very core function of a
public space may render it as a crime generator according to the crime pattern
theory and a victim of its success. This may not immediately be seen
problematic, but this viewpoint can create a framework within which the form,
function or both can be impacted overtime. The threat of is to undermine an
already successful public space by detracting the public life from it.  Other scholars have already pointed it out
that further attention to the temporal aspect of crime and location is
required. Ratcliffe argue that there are certain places, such as a workplace,
or paths, such as a commuter route, that are meant to be attended or utilised
at certain times. However, there are other places where people can have a
greater opportunity to decide whether to attend or not. Such locations are more
likely to be of recreational nature, such as a beach (beaches are quite
important recreational destinations in the context of Auckland. The relatively
easy access to coasts on the east and west is a significant in the identity of
Auckland as well as its residents).It is implied that this concept needs to be
understood from a would-be offender. In that sense, the rigidity of nodes where
a would-be offender has to attend involuntarily restricts their capability to
explore opportunities to commit crime. On the contrary, attending to
recreational nodes removes some of the restrictions such as time or legitimacy
to explore for opportunities to commit crime. This is the basis for Costello
and Ratcliffe to suggest that most opportunities for crime are less likely to
pre-planned, rather being identified randomly. The opportunistic nature of such
crimes hint to the importance of ‘direct access’ to targets (i.e. nodes).
Therefore, an effective solution offered is to remove or limit direct routes to
such nodes.However, crime pattern theory provides
pragmatic means for professionals to assess their development proposals to
identify the interventions they can include during the planning and design
processes to reduce opportunities for crime. Although the theory still does not
provide complete explanation of why would-be offenders behave and how their
decision is informed by the environmental cues, as argues by Gilling. In fact,
adding the decision-making process for an offender introduces complexity to the
theory as multiple variables needs to be considered that will range from the
subjective characteristics of the would-be offender to the nature of crime as
well as the target or victim of crime.It is argued (by Gilling) that the theory
should shed light on how environmental cues influence the decisions of a
would-be offender which eventually provide further insight, which will inform
more effective interventions.Rational choice theoryAlthough this method is widely referred to
in the literature as the rational choice theory, the pioneers of it have argued
that this would not be an accurate presentation of the method. The theory
presents offenders as rational who receive environmental cues to assess the
opportunities and risks involved in committing a crime (Cornish).According to Cornish, offenders are always
assessing the potential gain from committing a crime and the risks of being
caught. therefore, they usually have a two-step assessment, which includes the
easiness of carrying out crime and also escaping the consequences of it. The
environmental cues help them to complete these assessments, mostly the first
part which determines the challenges that risk their success.From the perspective of rational choice,
offenders tend to make two decisions about their criminality. Firstly, they
have to consciously decide to commit a crime when the opportunity to do so is
present. The other decision they have to make is whether they would like to
remain engaged in such criminal activities. Depending on a number of variables
such as the offender’s interest, their needs, and available opportunities of
crime can all influence the decisions mentioned above (Guerette). Therefore, a
particular type of crime may become more frequent in a given space, but not
spreading to other places.The reluctance of Cornish and Clarke to
identify the rational choice as a theory can have implications such as the lack
of robustness that would support its application in wide variety situations and
places. However, the fact that this ‘perspective’ is acknowledged as theory can
in fact reflect more on how it is being perceived and practiced. It seems that
referring to it as a theory rather than a perspective provides stronger grounds
for justifying the use of rational choice when attempting to resolving issues.  There is another aspect to the process when
a criminal decides to carry out a crime. Research suggests that motivated
criminals tend to commit crime to satisfy the mere motivation and are less
concerned with the category of the crime. There are fewer criminals who choose
to become specialised in a particular offence. This description seems to be
more realistic in opportunistic crime instances. With this perspective, a
criminal’s rationale can be better understood in a given place and situation.
If the environment presents them with the opportunity it is more likely that
the offender would cease the opportunity to commit crime.Compared to the other two criminological
theories discusses earlier, crime pattern theory not only considers the
environmental aspects in facilitating crime, but it also accounts for
misconduct, which eventually renders a more realistic picture of the issue and
a more pragmatic response as a result.this approach is not always acknowledged,
in fact, it has been criticised because of the lack of attention to the role of
environmental factors leading to criminal incidents. Some of the critics (such
as Wikstrom) believe that the motivation for criminality reside outside the
interaction of individual and the environment, however, it is the environmental
cues that are perceived as opportunities to commit a crime or otherwise to
avoid it. It is important to note that the underpinning assumption in all of
these frameworks is that a would-be criminal is capable of undertaking risk
assessments between the gains from the criminal act and the consequences of it,
being noticed and apprehended.Crime preventionThe discussion on crime and theories and
frameworks which aim to deconstruct how opportunities for expression of
criminal activities forms. This knowledge should ultimately informs the
decision on how to intervene in situations deemed prone to accommodating
criminal behaviours.with the rise of academic attention to
situational criminology during the late 1950s to 1960s, the practical crime
prevention practices became prevalent almost immediately mostly in Anglo-Saxon
societies such as in the UK and the US. This was mostly a response to their
concerns about the rising crime and delinquency. In the UK, the appraised
approach to crime prevention was identified as collaborative,
inter-organisational approaches. One of the initiatives undertaken by the
British government was to establish the Community Safety Partnerships.e main reason for the

it was during the era when the
consequences of modern society increasingly became more visible, but still the
in communities. revealved their consequences and time when the modernism
approaches were increasingly popular have the work of people