Addressing the carbon-crime blind spot : a carbon footprint approach

Governments estimate the social and economic impacts of crime, but its environmental impact is largely unacknowledged. Our study addresses this by estimating the carbon footprint of crime in England and Wales and identifies the largest sources of emissions. By applying environmentally extended input-output analysis–derived carbon emission factors to the monetized costs of crime, we estimate that crime committed in 2011 in England and Wales gave rise to over 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. Burglary resulted in the largest proportion of the total footprint (30%), because of the carbon associated with replacing stolen/damaged goods. Emissions arising from criminal justice system services also accounted for a large proportion (21% of all offenses; 49% of police recorded offenses). Focus on these offenses and the carbon efficiency of these services may help reduce the overall emissions that result from crime. However, cutting crime does not automatically result in a net reduction in carbon, given that we need to take account of potential rebound effects. As an example, we consider the impact of reducing domestic burglary by 5%. Calculating this is inherently uncertain given that it depends on assumptions concerning how money would be spent in the absence of crime. We find the most likely rebound effect (our medium estimate) is an increase in emissions of 2%. Despite this uncertainty concerning carbon savings, our study goes some way toward informing policy makers of the scale of the environmental consequences of crime and thus enables it to be taken into account in policy appraisals

Can burglary prevention be low-carbon and effective? Investigating the environmental performance of burglary prevention measures

There has been limited study to date on the environmental impacts of crime prevention measures. We address this shortfall by estimating the carbon footprint associated with the most widely used burglary prevention measures: door locks, window locks, burglar alarms, lighting and CCTV cameras. We compare these footprints with a measure of their effectiveness, the security protection factor, allowing us to identify those measures that are both low-carbon and effective in preventing burglary. Window locks are found to be the most effective and low-carbon measure available individually. Combinations of window locks, door locks, external and indoor lightings are also shown to be effective and low-carbon. Burglar alarms and CCTV do not perform as strongly, with low security against burglary and higher carbon footprints. This information can be used to help inform more sustainable choices of burglary prevention within households as well as for crime prevention product design

The carbon cost of crime.

Cutting carbon emissions is a global priority, wherever they occur, and those associated with crime are no exception. This research project explores the carbon cost of crime and crime prevention to ensure that carbon emissions can be considered wherever possible. Although this study focuses on crime in England and Wales as a case study, this can be applied elsewhere around the world. A lifecycle perspective was adopted throughout, to ensure that all aspects of the carbon footprint were accounted for. The carbon footprint of crime was estimated using Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis (EE-IOA) multipliers, and crime prevention measures were analysed by systematically reviewing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) environmental declarations. The study estimated that crime in England and Wales gave rise to over 4 million tCO2e in the year 2011, representing the ‘carbon cost of crime’. The falling number of criminal offences has resulted in a reduced carbon footprint from around 7 million tCO2e in 1995 to below 3 million tCO2e in 2015 (a cumulative reduction of over 54 million tCO2e). To explore burglary prevention measures, the carbon footprint was combined with an indicator of how secure against burglary the products were. Window and door locks were shown to be the highest performing individual measures with low carbon footprints and the highest chance of preventing crime. The highest performing combinations included window locks, internal lighting, door locks and external lighting. Burglar alarms were the worst performing measure, from both environmental and security perspectives. Overall, it is clear that crime and crime prevention have a carbon cost, and that carbon emissions need to be assessed and reduced wherever possible. The study has contributed towards informing practitioners and policy-makers of this connection between crime and the environment. If a low crime and low-carbon future is to be achieved, the encouraging trend of a decreasing carbon footprint attributable to crime needs to be maintained, and strategies must take into account environmental considerations alongside social and economic benefits

The carbon cost of crime.

Cutting carbon emissions is a global priority, wherever they occur, and those associated with crime are no exception. This research project explores the carbon cost of crime and crime prevention to ensure that carbon emissions can be considered wherever possible. Although this study focuses on crime in England and Wales as a case study, this can be applied elsewhere around the world. A lifecycle perspective was adopted throughout, to ensure that all aspects of the carbon footprint were accounted for. The carbon footprint of crime was estimated using Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis (EE-IOA) multipliers, and crime prevention measures were analysed by systematically reviewing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) environmental declarations. The study estimated that crime in England and Wales gave rise to over 4 million tCO2e in the year 2011, representing the ‘carbon cost of crime’. The falling number of criminal offences has resulted in a reduced carbon footprint from around 7 million tCO2e in 1995 to below 3 million tCO2e in 2015 (a cumulative reduction of over 54 million tCO2e). To explore burglary prevention measures, the carbon footprint was combined with an indicator of how secure against burglary the products were. Window and door locks were shown to be the highest performing individual measures with low carbon footprints and the highest chance of preventing crime. The highest performing combinations included window locks, internal lighting, door locks and external lighting. Burglar alarms were the worst performing measure, from both environmental and security perspectives. Overall, it is clear that crime and crime prevention have a carbon cost, and that carbon emissions need to be assessed and reduced wherever possible. The study has contributed towards informing practitioners and policy-makers of this connection between crime and the environment. If a low crime and low-carbon future is to be achieved, the encouraging trend of a decreasing carbon footprint attributable to crime needs to be maintained, and strategies must take into account environmental considerations alongside social and economic benefits

The falling carbon footprint of acquisitive and violent offences

Cutting carbon emissions, wherever they occur, is a global priority and those associated with crime are no exception. We show that between 1995 and 2015 the carbon footprint of acquisitive and violent crime has dropped by 62%, a total reduction of 54 million tonnes CO2e throughout this period. Although the environmental harm associated with crime is likely to be considered lower in importance than social or economic impacts, a focus on reducing high carbon crimes (burglary and vehicle offences) and high carbon aspects of the footprint (the need to replace stolen/damaged property) could be encouraged. Failure to acknowledge these potential environmental benefits may result in crime prevention strategies being unsustainable and carbon reduction targets being missed

Can Burglary Prevention be Low Carbon and Effective? Investigating the environmental performance of burglary prevention measures

There has been limited study to date on the environmental impacts of prevention measures. We address this shortfall by estimating the carbon footprint associated with the most widely used burglary prevention measures: door locks, window locks, burglar alarms, lighting and CCTV cameras. We compare these footprints with a measure of their effectiveness, the Security Protection Factor (SPF), allowing us to identify those measures that are both low carbon and effective in preventing burglary. Window locks are found to be the most effective and low carbon measure available individually. Combinations of window locks, door locks, external and indoor lighting are also shown to be effective and low carbon. Burglar alarms and CCTV do not perform as strongly, with low security against burglary and higher carbon footprints. This information can be used to help inform more sustainable choices of burglary prevention within households as well as for crime prevention product design