Introduction
Globally, laptop theft has emerged as one of the most prevalent forms of property crime on university campuses (Behling and Wood Reference Behling and Wood2007; Dimkov, Pieters, and Hartel Reference Dimkov, Pieters and Hartel2010; McGrath, Perumean-Chaney, and Sloan Reference McGrath, Perumean-Chaney and Sloan III2014; Ross and Rasool Reference Ross and Rasool2019). In Nigeria, the strategic mainstreaming of information and communication technology resources, including digital devices, into academic activities has grown exponentially in recent times, with laptops being among the most popular gadgets on university campuses (Adewusi, Adetunji, and Ibitoye Reference Adewusi, Adetayo and Ibitoye2021; Bello et al. Reference Bello, Daramola, Yusuf and Amali2015). However, the pervasiveness of laptop usage among university students and staff members comes with a huge cost, as these gadgets constitute a major category of valuable items that thieves operating in school environments often find attractive. Indeed, the theft of laptops on university campuses in Nigeria has become a common problem, as hundreds of these devices are lost annually to thieves using both violent and non-violent tactics to dispossess people of their property (Adejoh Reference Adejoh2020; Jobi, Ogunbodede, and Tongo Reference Jobi, Ogunbodede and Tongo2022).
Laptop theft on university campuses in Nigeria has become a major cause for concern for university students, staff members, school administrators and other relevant stakeholders owing to its frequency of occurrence and the socio-economic costs cum psychological trauma that usually accompany it. The theft of laptops holds multiple devastating consequences for victims of the crime. Apart from the fact that it typically amounts to an obvious loss of and/or separation from highly valued and expensive personal property, the exposure to criminal victimization is usually distressing for victims because it typically diminishes their sense of control and self-worth. More so, laptops are also critical cyber-physical assets whose theft could put victims at risk of experiencing financial losses, public shaming owing to the leakage of personal information, strain on social relationships, and career disruption because they often contain sensitive and confidential information bordering on finances, personal lifestyles, academic works and vocational-related responsibilities of their owners.
Furthermore, the frequent occurrence of laptop theft on university campuses also becomes problematic because it often breeds fear, suspicion, anger and resentment among classmates, roommates, library users and colleagues, as perpetrators of this form of crime are hardly apprehended, while such stolen gadgets are typically not recovered. Consequently, the tendency for the theft of a laptop to rapidly escalate into chaos and mob justice is usually high. For instance, in October 2012, four students of the University of Port Harcourt were publicly stripped naked, beaten to death and set ablaze by a mob in Aluu town, Rivers State, for the alleged theft of a laptop and mobile handsets (Ibeh Reference Ibeh2012; The Nation 2016). Moreover, although campus criminality has garnered tremendous scholarly attention in Nigeria (Badiora Reference Badiora2017; Dinne, Ademuson, and Yusuf Reference Dinne, Ademuson and Yusuf2024; Ezeonu Reference Ezeonu2014), the incidence of laptop theft in school environments has remained grossly under-researched. Therefore, this research was essentially motivated by the observed lacuna and the need to generate practical insights into the indices associated with the problem, thereby channelling a useful path towards effectively addressing it. Against this background, the central objective of the research was to investigate the risk factors and protective strategies against laptop theft victimization among students and staff members of a university campus in southwest Nigeria.
Literature Review
Laptops are among the most commonly stolen objects in university settings and research laboratories worldwide (Ross and Rasool Reference Ross and Rasool2019; Strom Reference Strom2012). Forbes-Mewett, McCulloch, and Nyland (Reference Forbes-Mewett, McCulloch and Nyland2015) note that laptop theft falls within the realm of opportunistic crime, to which university students and staff are particularly vulnerable. Also, Tu, Yuan, and Archer (Reference Tu, Yuan and Archer2014) contend that the association of laptops with certain characteristics, including easy mobility, portability, flexibility, high storage capacity, high processing power and availability in the used market, makes them attractive to thieves. Although their hardware value often drives the theft of laptops, it is estimated that 10–15% of laptop thieves target the sensitive data stored on laptops (Behling and Wood Reference Behling and Wood2007). Furthermore, the results of two separate studies conducted by Dimkov et al. (Reference Dimkov, Pieters and Hartel2010) and Strom (Reference Strom2012) independently established that most cases of laptop theft occurred when owners left their laptops unattended in public settings, such as cafeterias or meeting rooms.
Behling and Wood (Reference Behling and Wood2007) assert that laptop thefts are not only a problem because of the financial costs of computers and software but, more importantly, because of the amount of organizational and personal data stored in them. They also claim that laptop theft is a pervasive problem in the United States, with over 600,000 laptops stolen each year and more than 93 million data records compromised. The 2009 Intel study on laptop theft estimated the average value of a lost laptop to be about $50,000, together with the costs of data breaches (Ross and Rasool Reference Ross and Rasool2019). Fox, Nobles, and Piquero (Reference Fox, Nobles and Piquero2009) state that exposure to laptop theft typically affects students’ academic performance on university campuses, as it frequently exacerbates the existing stresses of university life. Similarly, the research of Tomsich, Gover, and Jennings (Reference Tomsich, Gover and Jennings2011), which was conducted on 564 undergraduate students at a large southeastern non-urban university in the United States, revealed that students made use of behavioural changes or “constrained behaviour” in their efforts to reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of laptop theft.
Behling and Wood (Reference Behling and Wood2007) lament that laptop devices can be very challenging to protect because they are typically easy to remove and conceal. Similarly, Filkins and Hardy (Reference Filkins and Hardy2016) argue that despite the recognition of laptop theft as a pervasive problem, organizations often struggle to design a specific solution to address it. A survey conducted by Morrow (Reference Morrow2012) among staff members of selected organizations found that only a few of their samples had concrete solutions to protect their laptop devices from theft. Adejoh (Reference Adejoh2020) explains that university management in Nigeria typically responds to criminality on their campuses by establishing a security unit that collaborates with other security agencies, erecting perimeter fences in certain areas, installing CCTV cameras and enhancing campus lighting. Dimkov et al. (Reference Dimkov, Pieters and Hartel2010) identify the three major types of security mechanisms for securing laptops in organizational buildings, including: physical mechanisms (such as doors and cameras, which physically isolate the thief from the laptop and/or identify her in case of an incident); technical mechanisms (such as laptop tracking and remote data deletion, which protect the laptop and the data in the laptop by using software); and procedural mechanisms (such as organizational policies and rules, which decrease the number of mistakes by employees and increase the resilience of employees toward social engineering).
Theoretical Framework
This research is grounded in the propositions of routine activity theory for its conceptual framework. Routine activity theory, proposed in 1979 by Larry Cohen and Marcus Felson, was developed to explain the occurrence of crime due to the convergence of three principal elements: a suitable target; a motivated offender; and the absence of a capable guardian. The theory posits that the volume of criminal offences is closely tied to the nature of everyday social interaction patterns, as the number of crimes changes in response to changes in these patterns (Williams III and McShane Reference Williams, Frank and McShane1999).
According to routine activity theory, when a motivated offender and a suitable target come together in the absence of a capable guardian, criminal opportunity occurs. On the one hand, target suitability implies certain important qualities, such as the value of a person or property, access to it and resistance capability. Capable guardians may be either formal or informal third parties with the capacity for intervention (Cohen and Felson Reference Cohen and Felson1979). On the other hand, the motivated offender refers to individuals who are motivated or inclined to perpetrate a crime. This element is considered a constant, meaning that motivated offenders will always be available to take advantage of the opportunities that arise. Indeed, the convergence in time and space of a suitable target with no guardianship is sufficient to produce a crime without any change to structural conditions to motivate offenders (Cohen and Felson Reference Cohen and Felson1979). The theory also posits that although there will always be a substantial number of motivated offenders, suitable targets (either vulnerable individuals or unattended valuables) and capable guardians (watchful friends and neighbours, the police or security personnel) will always vary in terms of location and time. Thus, people’s exposure to the risk of criminal victimization will always vary dramatically among the circumstances and locations in which they place themselves and their property (Cohen and Felson Reference Cohen and Felson1979). Regarding laptop theft on university campuses, the locations where students and staff take or leave their laptops, as well as the level of vigilance they exert over them, would likely play a key role in the decision-making of criminally minded individuals on whether or not to target their devices for theft.
Methods
Study Area and Study Population
This research was conducted on a university campus in southwestern Nigeria. The selection of the institution as the site for this research was informed by the fact that it has a large number of undergraduate and postgraduate students making use of laptop devices for their academic activities. More importantly, there have been frequent reports of laptop theft on the campus in recent times. The study population consisted of students residing on the main campus of the institution, staff members working within the main campus and personnel from the campus security unit.
Design and Procedure
This research employed a descriptive cross-sectional design. The qualitative approach, which involved a combination of in-depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and key-informant interviews (KIIs), was primarily used to elicit data from the respondents. Specifically, IDIs were conducted with 10 victims (students and staff) of laptop theft, while five KIIs were conducted with personnel from the university’s campus security unit. Furthermore, FGD sessions were held with undergraduate and postgraduate students across five halls of residence. As regards respondent sampling, a quota sampling technique was adopted for the selection of five halls of residence to represent two male students’ halls (for undergraduates), two female students’ halls (for undergraduates) and one postgraduate students’ hall (mixed). Similarly, the same technique was employed to select FGD participants across the hall while consciously ensuring representation of the diversity of students in terms of sex, faculty, level of study, residence blocks and ethnic groups, among others. The victims of laptop theft were sampled using the snowball sampling technique, while the other categories of respondents were purposively chosen.
The procedure for analysing the elicited data involved transcribing the tape-recorded interviews and discussions. This was followed by the manual content analysis of the transcribed data to explore, tease out, discuss and interpret the recurring themes based on the major research objectives. Furthermore, to make the discourse more descriptive, lucid and robust, verbatim quotations of some important and unique responses given by respondents were used in the narrative reporting technique. The Department of Sociology approved this study by the researchers after assessing and ascertaining that it conforms to the internationally recommended ethical standards and procedures guiding the conduct of social research. The ethical protocols, which encompassed the principles of informed consent, confidentiality, voluntary participation, non-maleficence and beneficence, were generally respected and upheld throughout the research.
Results and Discussion
This section entails the presentation, discussion and interpretation of the major findings that emanated from this research. The specific themes covered include the frequency of laptop theft victimization on university campuses, the factors that make people susceptible to laptop theft, the spatial–temporal distribution of laptop theft on university campuses and the commonly adopted protective strategies against laptop theft.
Frequency of Laptop Theft Victimization in the University Campus
To ascertain the scale and magnitude of laptop theft victimization on the university campus, information was gathered from the respondents regarding the frequency of the problem. There was a clear consensus among the respondents that laptop theft is a common form of crime in the institution. One of the principal security officers interviewed mentioned that:
Crime is common. For instance, during an inaugural lecture, an outsider entered a lecturer’s car and stole a laptop. Although her driver was watching the car, he was unaware that something was amiss. Only when his boss came and could not find the bag she had left in the car before attending the lecture did they realize what had happened. This was one of the many incidents involving doctors, students, and others.
Additionally, a man parked his car in the Student Union Building not long ago and discovered that his laptop had been stolen from it. Unfortunately, there was no way to catch the thief, so we filed the report. Another person came to report a similar incident a few weeks back. There was a sports program going on at the stadium complex. A young man had parked his car and left it with some ladies. After watching a football match and returning to the car, they discovered that some properties, including his laptop, were missing (KII, male, Principal Security Officer 1).
An undergraduate student who was once a victim of a crime stated that:
It was not a palatable experience for me because a significant amount of data was lost. I left the hostel to visit my father’s quarters in one of the staff residential areas on campus, as he works at this university. My laptop and phone were plugged into an extension in the sitting room. We did not understand how the theft occurred, but we only discovered that a thief had gained entry into our apartment. Five laptops were stolen from our house on that particular day (IDI, male, student, 400 level, Hall of Residence 1).
Another interviewee explained it thus:
There was an incident that happened at the Human Resource Department. Two staff members were sharing an office. The first person needed to step out of their office to attend to something; the second person, whom he had left in the office, also went out, leaving their office unlocked, claiming they did not go far. However, intruders are always looking for an opportunity to strike. When they returned to the office, they could not find their laptop. This was similar to the incident I mentioned earlier at the Theatre Arts Department and also the one recorded at another faculty on campus. Laptop theft has occurred in many locations where a staff member leaves their office door open, stepping briefly into the next office. When the thieves peek inside and do not see anyone, they enter and steal whatever they want (KII, male, Chief Security Officer).
A male staff member who had been victimized shared his own experience this way:
On that day, I went on an official assignment to the postgraduate college, and I left my laptop in my office. On my arrival back at the office, I discovered that my gadget had been stolen. I raised an alarm, but the thief was never apprehended. I made a report of the incident at the security office (IDI, male, administrative staff, Registry).
It is evident from the above narratives that laptop theft is a frequently occurring form of property crime on the university campus, affecting both students and staff and occurring in public places, residential quarters, offices, hostels, sports grounds and car parks, amongst others. Furthermore, it can also be deduced from the findings that this form of property crime is largely opportunity-driven, as thieves typically capitalize on the lack of vigilance on the part of their victims. Moreover, it was equally established in nearly all the recorded cases of laptop theft on campus that the victims never had a direct encounter with the thieves, as their gadgets were usually stolen in their absence. This result aligns with the position of Strom (Reference Strom2012) that the crime of laptop theft has become prevalent and persistent, with educational and research institutes among the top most affected organizations worldwide. It also validates a key tenet of the routine activity theory, which posits that criminal opportunity arises when a motivated offender and a suitable target come together in the absence of a capable guardian.
Factors Making People Susceptible to Laptop Theft in the University Campus
To generate adequate insights into the situational and contextual drivers of laptop theft on the university campus, respondents were asked about the factors that make people susceptible to crime. Findings indicate that human errors and negligence were the primary factors contributing to the vulnerability of victims to laptop theft. In one of the FGD sessions held, a participant contributed this way:
Some people are careless with their personal computers (PCs), including both staff and students. They usually leave their laptops unattended when they briefly step out of their room or office. Another factor is that people usually charge their laptops in public areas, which often makes them vulnerable to being victimized. They are easy targets for thieves (FGD, female, student, 300 Level, Hall of Residence 4).
An interviewee narrated his experience thus:
I had gone out of my room to read in the reading room in my residence hall. My laptop was on the table where I was reading, alongside that of my friend’s. As night fell, I started feeling sleepy, and I decided to rest. I put my head on the two laptops, with one arm on my laptop and the other on my friend’s. I slept from around 4:00 am to 6:00 am. That was when the theft happened. Through the night, I had both laptops with me, but it was dark. That was when someone walked up to where I was sleeping and took my friend’s laptop. When I woke up, my laptop was still there, but my friend’s gadget was gone. That was how it happened (IDI, male, student, 400 Level, Hall of Residence 1).
In the words of another:
My laptop was stolen when I was reading in the Faculty of Arts reading room. On that day, my boss, who taught me how to play the talking drum, sent me a WhatsApp message asking me to bring my drum. I went to attend to him and got back around 5 am. Before leaving, I removed my glasses from my bag, which contained my laptop, because I needed them to see. I did not think twice because I assumed my bag and laptop were intact. When I returned, I woke my friend up and said, “Let us go.” She reminded me, “Carry your bag.” However, my bag and laptop were both stolen (IDI, female, student, 200 Level, Hall of Residence 5).
A key informant also stated that:
The incident that occurred at the Registry, Human Resource and Development, involved a staff member who left her laptop on the table. She was not in the office, as she was working elsewhere, but a messenger or a clerk was present. Someone pretended to know the lady and asked for her by name. The clerk asked the person to sit down. Immediately after the lady left, the laptop disappeared, and to this day, we have been unable to apprehend the person who was responsible for the crime. A similar incident occurred at the Alumni Center, where a staff member was working on a laptop. Just minutes after he stepped outside the office, his laptop disappeared. Within the space of five minutes, the laptop vanished (KII, male, Principal Security Officer 1).
One of the victims of laptop theft also accounted for his vulnerability this way:
The laptop may have been stolen because it was visible in the back of the car where I had parked it at the Student Union Building field. The thief could see it, and since my car was not secured, he likely thought he had an opportunity to take it. The laptop was left on the rear backrest of my car, not even on the seats (IDI, male, student, 200 Level, Hall of Residence 1).
It can be deduced from these findings that the people’s vulnerability to laptop theft victimization on the university campus was self-induced and due largely to carelessness. Specifically, the major situations identified in the study as contributing to the victims’ exposure to laptop thieves include leaving gadgets unattended, charging laptops in public places, leaving office doors unlocked, falling asleep while using laptops in the reading room and keeping laptops in unlocked cars. These identified situations and contexts are a pointer to the fact that the victims of laptop theft failed to secure their gadgets properly and consequently encouraged criminally minded individuals to target them for victimization. This finding is similar to the outcome of Dimkov et al.’s (Reference Dimkov, Pieters and Hartel2010) research, which found that, in most cases, laptop theft occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the owners, who left their devices unattended. Furthermore, it supports the position of the routine activity theory that people’s exposure to the risk of criminal victimization will vary dramatically depending on the circumstances and locations in which they place themselves and their property.
Spatial–Temporal Distribution of Laptop Theft on the University Campus
Time and location have been identified to be among the major predictors of crime occurrence (Ceccato and Uittenbogaard Reference Ceccati and Uittenbogaard2014; Rengert and Wasilchick Reference Rengert and Wasilchick1990). Therefore, it was considered imperative to investigate the spatial–temporal distribution of the incidence of laptop theft on the university campus. The findings generally established that the occurrence of laptop theft was more closely tied to some locations and periods than others. An FGD participant expressed her opinion this way:
Laptop theft is very common in hostels. Most times, theft occurs in the hostel at night when people are asleep and less active. This allows thieves to access rooms undetected (FGD, female, student, 700 Level, Hall of Residence 3).
An interviewee shared a similar opinion:
Halls of residence, faculties, and public places are more prone to laptop theft. Some individuals visit these areas solely to steal. The reason is that these locations attract large gatherings of people reading and utilizing their gadgets for study discussions. Specifically, reading rooms, halls of residence, and public areas, such as lecture rooms, are particularly vulnerable. People often gather in these spaces, making it easier for thieves to target unattended belongings (IDI, male, student, 400 Level, Hall of Residence 2).
Another victim of the crime claimed thus:
Firstly, it is the reading rooms. In reading rooms alone, I have witnessed about five cases of laptop theft in my hall of residence. First of all, people go to very vulnerable places. Thieves know people go to these places to read, and sometimes we do sleep off while reading. They know people who go there with their gadgets to read. So, they usually go to the hotspots where they know they can find the gadgets they need. So, they usually operate in the reading rooms and at television viewing centers because some people usually go to these places to charge their gadgets whenever there is a general power outage on campus (IDI, male, student, 400 Level, Hall of Residence 1).
One major inference that can be drawn from these submissions is that although laptop theft on the university campus is a widespread form of property crime, thieves specializing in crime frequently target certain locations for their victims over others. The major hubs of laptop theft operations on campus include students’ halls of residence, reading rooms and lecture rooms. This result demonstrates the intentionality of laptop thieves, who typically engage in a strategic selection of locations to target victims. Students’ halls of residence, reading rooms and lecture rooms were the major hotspots for the crime because they are all typical settings with high volumes of laptops. Many students who owned laptops were residents in halls, and laptops were also frequently carried to reading rooms and lecture halls for academic activities. Thus, these locations were the major crime generators and targets of laptop thieves operating in the institution.
Furthermore, regarding the time when laptop theft is most common, most respondents claimed that the crime is often more frequently reported at night, particularly during end-of-semester examinations. One member of the campus security personnel shared his professional experience regarding the common time of occurrence of the crime this way:
It is usually high during examination periods because students want to use their laptops to browse and read. Some have their e-books and other materials on their laptops and storage devices. They want to use them to read during exams. Once you place it (laptop) in an inappropriate place during the exam, consider it gone (KII, male, Principal Security Officer 1).
An interviewee also submitted that:
Suppose we use the academic calendar, which is divided into semesters and sessions. So, many times, we might not have too many people using the reading room at the start of the semester, but when it is nearing test and exam time, people have to make use of the reading rooms. Cases of laptop theft are usually more rampant during those times (IDI, male, student, 400 Level, Hall of Residence 1).
A focused group discussant had this to say:
Incidents of laptop theft are mostly reported at night, as students often visit the reading rooms to study overnight. So, thieves targeting them usually steal their laptops when they notice that they have become tired and unconscious. You know, when someone has been studying a lot and gets tired, the person automatically sleeps off. When the person is less conscious, the thief targeting him/her will take away the laptop (FGD, male, 400 Level, Hall of Residence 3).
The above responses of the respondents affirm the fact that thieves engaging in the crime of laptop theft are typically more active at night during students’ end-of-semester examinations when they are likely to be more pressured to make use of their laptops in crowded environments and when they are less likely to be very vigilant owing to the stress and fatigue that is usually borne out of their preparations for examinations. This finding suggests that thieves engaging in laptop theft on university campuses are rational individuals who are concerned with committing crimes with minimal risk of detection. Furthermore, a major implication of the result on the spatial–temporal distribution of laptop theft is that the risk of being exposed to criminal victimization is particularly higher for students than other categories of individuals on the university campus because thieves typically target students’ most frequent spaces (halls of residence, reading rooms and lecture rooms) and usually strike more during end-of-semester examinations. Forbes-Mewett et al. (Reference Forbes-Mewett, McCulloch and Nyland2015) have similarly observed that university students are more particularly vulnerable to opportunistic crime because they tend to have many items of value, including laptops, that thieves usually find attractive. Routine activity theory posits that, although there will always be a substantial number of motivated offenders, suitable targets (either vulnerable individuals or unattended valuables) and capable guardians (watchful friends, neighbours, the police and security personnel) will vary in terms of place and time.
Commonly Adopted Response Strategies Against Laptop Theft Victimization
Since the theft of laptops was deemed prevalent on the university campus, respondents were asked about the protective measures they were taking to safeguard their devices. Nearly all of them claimed to be taking conscious steps to protect themselves against being victimized. An interviewee whose laptop had been stolen in the past claimed that:
I now use passwords to protect my laptop, and I also use keyloggers in case of unauthorized entry on my laptop. I can easily determine the person entering the password or their username on my laptop through my phone (IDI, male, student, 300 Level, Hall of Residence 3).
Another interviewee similarly stated:
Like they say, until something happens to you, you do not take caution. So, as it (laptop theft) happened to me, I am now more attentive to situations (IDI, male, staff, Registry).
In the words of another respondent:
Aside from hiding it (laptop) whenever I am leaving the hostel, I do not think there is any other preventive method or a better one at that order than asking other people to look after it for me (FGD, male, student, 300 Level, Hall of Residence 2).
However, a respondent expressed a slightly different opinion:
I would not say I was adopting any particular measures, but everybody has things like passwords or keyloggers to track their laptop; however, those measures cannot help us. They (thieves) will still eventually wipe the laptop, so there is no way they can be apprehended after the theft (IDI, female, student, 400 Level, Hall of Residence 4).
Another respondent similarly opined thus:
The common perception that everybody has about protecting a laptop is to just put a password on it. The fact is, whenever you want to use your laptop, the moment you bring it out, it is already vulnerable. It is impossible to keep your laptop one hundred percent (IDI, male, student, 200 Level, Hall of Residence 2).
It can be established from the above submissions that the frequency of laptop theft on the university campus has brought into people’s consciousness the need to take some intentional steps towards protecting their devices. The major safety measures employed by the respondents included using passwords for their gadgets, installing keyloggers on their laptops, becoming more vigilant and hiding their devices in perceived safe locations when leaving halls of residence. One major implication of this result is that laptop owners were fearful of the criminal activities of thieves stealing laptops on campus and were also frequently concerned with the safety of their devices. Furthermore, the efficacy of some of the employed measures, particularly the use of passwords and the installation of keyloggers as means of safeguarding laptops, is in doubt, as thieves targeting them are typically concerned with selling laptops or their parts on underground markets for stolen items, rather than retaining them for personal use. This result aligns with the position of Dimkov et al. (Reference Dimkov, Pieters and Hartel2010), who state that laptops are among the physical assets most difficult to protect, with their theft often presenting a daunting challenge to security professionals in open organizations, such as university campuses. It also affirms a major postulation of routine activity theory that the convergence in time and space of a suitable target with no guardianship is sufficient to produce crime without any change to structural conditions to motivate offenders.
Conclusion
The risk factors and response strategies for preventing laptop theft victimization among students and staff on a university campus in southwest Nigeria were the primary focus of this paper. The study revealed the pervasiveness of laptop theft within the institution, with victims’ exposure to the crime largely driven by leaving their gadgets unattended, charging laptops in public places, leaving office doors unlocked, falling asleep while using laptops in reading rooms and keeping laptops in unlocked cars. Halls of residence, reading rooms and lecture rooms were major hotspots of laptop theft on the university campus. A higher number of cases of laptop theft were typically recorded at night during end-of-semester examinations. Laptop owners were concerned about the safety of their devices and consequently were embracing certain measures to protect their gadgets.
Based on the identified situational and contextual drivers of laptop theft on university campuses, three major recommendations – embedded in behavioural adjustments and technological interventions – are suggested as practical means of controlling the crime. First, there is a need for the students and staff of the institution to be periodically sensitized and coached by the institution’s security department on basic security and safety tips, through which they can effectively secure their laptops and other personal property. Indeed, human errors and negligence were identified as the primary factors contributing to the vulnerability of victims to laptop theft. Thus, if this is successfully achieved, a culture of vigilance and security consciousness will be instilled in laptop owners, and this will automatically lead to a significant reduction in the number of laptops lost to thieves every semester due to inadequate guardianship.
Second, the university management needs to install closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras in the identified locations (reading rooms, corridors of halls of residence, lecture rooms and office corridors) that have been identified as major hubs of laptop theft operations. The introduction of the security apparatus into these identified hotspots would culminate in the modification of the environment, which can weaken the criminal courage of potential laptop thieves (motivated offenders), as engaging in the theft of laptop(s) (suitable targets) in such surveilled spaces (elements of capable guardianship) can lead to their exposure and apprehension. Finally, the posting of security notices and reminders warning people about the criminal activities of thieves on campus in strategic areas and locations identified as major hubs of laptop theft can also go a long way in combatting the incidence of laptop theft. The Students’ Union Governing Committees of various faculties, departments and halls of residence can take up this responsibility. This strategy is capable of constantly alerting laptop owners (guardians) on the need to be security conscious against the threat of thieves (motivated offenders) targeting their devices (suitable targets).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of all our study participants to the success of this research.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Usman A. Ojedokun is a senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. His research interests encompass the areas of crime prevention and law enforcement, policing and police studies, violence, and gender and cultural crimes.
Oyejide A. Oyekanmi is a postgraduate student at the Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
