Security Journal

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 389–409 | Cite as

Adding to the mix: a multilevel analysis of residential burglary

Original Article

Abstract

Environmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective to assess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibility and boundary height have significant effects, and that street type and indicators of antisocial behaviour also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level variables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue that both house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of the risk of burglary.

Keywords

Burglary Vulnerability Fixed effects CPTED Multilevel 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO - grant number G007011N).

References

  1. Armitage, R., and C. Joyce. 2017. “Why my house?”–Exploring the influence of residential housing design on burglar decision-making. In Re-building crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), ed. R. Armitage, and P. Ekblom. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, R., L. Monchuk, and M. Rogerson. 2011. It looks good, but what is it like to live there? Exploring the impact of innovative housing design on crime. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 17: 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, G. 1968. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 7: 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernasco, W., and P. Nieuwbeerta. 2005. How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. British Journal of Criminology 45: 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borenstein, M., L.V. Hedges, J.P.T. Higgins, et al. 2009. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1981. Notes on the geometry of crime. In Environmental criminology, ed. P.J. Brantingham, and P.L. Brantingham, 27–54. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1984. Burglary Mobility and Crime Prevention Planning. In Coping with burglary: Research perspectives on policy, ed. R.V. Clarke, and T. Hope, 77–96. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1993. Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brantingham, P.J., and P.L. Brantingham. 2008. Crime pattern theory. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley, and L. Mazerolle. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, B.B., and I. Altman. 1983. Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3: 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bursik, R.J., and J. Webb. 1982. Community changes and patterns of delinquency. American Journal of Sociology 88: 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clare, J. 2011. Examination of systematic variations in burglars’ domain-specific perceptual and procedural skills. Psychology Crime & Law 17: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke, P., and B. Wheaton. 2007. Addressing data sparseness in contextual population research: Using cluster analysis to create synthetic neighborhoods. Sociological Methods and Research 35: 311–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, L.E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44: 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornish, D., and R. Clarke. 1986. The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. In Research in criminology, ed. A. Blumstein, and D. Farrington, 246. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Coupe, T., and L. Blake. 2006. Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology 44: 431–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cozens, P. 2008. Crime prevention through environmental design. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley, and L. Mazerolle, 153–177. Cullompton: Willan publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Curtin, L., N. Tilley, M. Owen, et al. 2001. Developing crime reduction plans: Some examples from the reducing burglary initiative. Crime Reduction Research Series 7. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  20. Davies, T., and S.D. Johnson. 2015. Examining the relationship between road structure and burglary risk via quantitative network analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31: 481–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, C., K. Jones, and G. Moon. 1998. Context, composition and heterogeneity: Using multilevel models in health research. Social Science and Medicine 46: 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekblom, P. 2011. Deconstructing CPTED… and reconstructing it for practice, knowledge management and research. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 17: 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garcia-Retamero, R., and M.K. Dhami. 2009. Take-the-best in expert-novice decision strategies for residential burglary. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16: 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hakim, S., G.F. Rengert, and Y. Shachmurove. 2001. Target search of burglars: A revised economic model. Papers in Regional Science 80: 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton-Smith, L.N., and A. Kent. 2005. The prevention of domestic burglary. In Handbook of crime prevention and community safety, ed. N. Tilley, 417–457. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Hardyns, W., M. Van de Velde, L. Pauwels, et al. 2010. Veelvoorkomende criminaliteit, slachtofferschap en stedelijkheid in België: een criminografische analyse. In Criminografische ontwikkelingen: Van (victim)-survey tot penitentiaire statistiek, ed. L. Pauwels, S. De Keulenaer, S. Deltenre, et al., 27–60. Maklu: Antwerpen.Google Scholar
  27. Hirschfield, A., and K.J. Bowers. 1997. The effect of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas. Urban Studies 34: 1275–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hockey, D. 2016. Burglary crime scene rationality of a select group of non-apprehend burglars. SAGE Open 6: 2158244016640589.Google Scholar
  29. Hox, J.J. 2010. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  31. Jeffery, C.R. 1971. Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, E., and J. Payne. 1986. The decision to commit a crime: an information-processing analysis. In The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending, ed. D. Cornish, and R. Clarke, 170–185. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, S.D., and K.J. Bowers. 2010. Permeability and burglary risk: Are cul-de-sacs safer? Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26: 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleemans, E.R. 1996. Strategische misdaadanalyse en stedelijke criminaliteit: Een toepassing van de rationele keuzebenadering op stedelijke criminaliteitspatronen en het gedrag van daders, toegespitst op het delict woninginbraak. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
  35. Lattimore, P., and A. Witte. 1986. Models of decision making under uncertainty: The criminal choice. In The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending, ed. D. Cornish, and R. Clarke, 129–155. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lynch, J.P., and D. Cantor. 1992. Ecological and behavioral influences on property victimization at home: Implications for opportunity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29: 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mawby, R.I. 2001. Burglary. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Montoya, L., M. Junger, and Y. Ongena. 2014. The relation between residential property and its surroundings and day- and night-time residential burglary. Environment and Behavior 48: 515–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nee, C. 2003. Research on burglary at the end of the millennium: A grounded theory approach to understanding crime. Security Journal 16: 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nee, C., and A. Meenaghan. 2006. Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology 46: 935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Newman, O. 1972. Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Nezlek, J.B. 2008. An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2: 842–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nobles, M.R., J.T. Ward, and R. Tillyer. 2016. The impact of neighborhood context on spatiotemporal patterns of burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53: 711–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Park, R., E. Burgess, R. McKenzie, et al. 1925. The city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Peeters, M.P. 2013. Assessing the vulnerability of targets for burglary. Creating a multi-level observational instrument. In Crime, Violence, Justice and Social Order, ed. P. Ponsaers, A. Crawford, J. De Maillard, J. Shapland, and A. Verhage, 171–206. Antwerpen: Maklu.Google Scholar
  46. Peeters, M.P. 2016. De intrinsieke inbraakgevoeligheid van woningen. De relatie tussen omgevingscriminologische kenmerken op huis-, straat-, en buurtniveau en het inbraakrisico van woningen. Den Haag: Boom Criminologie.Google Scholar
  47. Perkins, D.D., A. Wandersman, R.C. Rich, et al. 1993. The physical environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poyner, B. 1993. What works in crime prevention: An overview of evaluations. In Crime prevention studies, ed. R.V. Clarke, 7–34. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  49. Poyner, B., and B. Webb. 1991. Crime free housing. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.Google Scholar
  50. Raudenbush, S., A. Bryck, Y. Cheong, et al. 2011. HLM 7: Linear and nonlinear modeling—digital version. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  51. Reynald, D.M. 2009. Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reynald, D.M., and H. Elffers. 2009. The future of Newman’s defensible space theory: Linking defensible space and the routine activities of space. European Journal of Criminology 6: 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sampson, R.J. 2002. Transcending tradition: New directions in community research, Chicago style. Criminology 40: 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sampson, R.J., and S.W. Raudenbush. 1999. Systematic social observation of public space: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology 105: 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shachmurove, Y., G. Fishman, and S. Hakim. 1997. The Burglar as a Rational Economic Agent. http://www.econ.upenn.edu/system/files/97-07.pdf.
  56. Shaw, C.R., and H.D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Shover, N. 1991. Burglary. In Crime and justice: A review of research, ed. M. Tonry, 73–113. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sohn, D.-W. 2015. Residential crimes and neighbourhood built environment: Assessing the effectiveness of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Cities 52: 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stad Gent. 2014. Gent in cijfers. www.gent.be/gentincijfers.
  60. Taylor, R. 2001. Breaking away from broken windows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  61. Taylor, R. 2002. Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): Yes, no, maybe, unknowable and all of the above. In Handbook of environmental psychology, ed. R.B. Bechtel, and A. Churchman. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  62. Taylor, E. 2014. Honour among thieves? How morality and rationality influence the decision-making processes of convicted domestic burglars. Criminology & Criminal Justice 14: 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Taylor, M., and C. Nee. 1988. The role of cues in simulated residential burglary: A preliminary investigation. British Journal of Criminology 28: 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tilley, N.J., R. Thompson, G. Farrell, et al. 2015. Do burglar alarms increase burglary risk? A counter-intuitive finding and possible explanations. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 17: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Townsley, M., D. Birks, W. Bernasco, et al. 2015. Burglar target selection. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Townsley, M., D. Birks, S. Ruiter, et al. 2016. Target selection models with preference variation between offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 32: 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tranmer, M., and M. Elliot. 2007. Multilevel modelling coursebook. CCSR Teaching Paper 200703. Manchester: Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research.Google Scholar
  68. Trickett, A., D.R. Osborn, and D. Ellingworth. 1995. Property crime victimisation: The roles of individual and area influences. International Review of Victimology 3: 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tseloni, A., D.R. Osborn, A. Trickett, et al. 2002. Modelling property crime using the British crime survey: What have we learnt? British Journal of Criminology 42: 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tseloni, A., K. Wittebrood, G. Farrell, et al. 2004. Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands: A cross-national comparative test of routine activities and lifestyle theories. British Journal of Criminology 44: 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tseloni, A., I. Ntzoufras, A. Nicolauo, et al. 2010. Concentration of personal and household crimes in England and Wales. European Journal of Applied Mathematics 21: 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tseloni, A., R. Thompson, L. Grove, et al. 2014. The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal 30: 646–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vandenbroucke, J.P., E. Von Elm, D.G. Altman, et al. 2007. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 4: 1628–1654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Verwee, I., P. Ponsaers, and E. Enhus. 2007. Inbreken is mijn vak: Textuur en praktijk van woninginbraak. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  75. Wagers, M., W. Sousa, and G.L. Kelling. 2008. Broken windows. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley, and L. Mazerolle, 247–262. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  76. Watts, R.E. 1931. The influence of population density on crime. Journal of the American Statistical Association 26: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weisburd, D., E.R. Groff, and S.-M. Yang. 2012. The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson, J.Q., and G.L. Kelling. 1982. Broken windows: The police and neighbourhood safety. The Atlantic 249: 29–38.Google Scholar
  79. Wright, R., and S. Decker. 1994. Burglars on the job: Street life and residential break-ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Criminal Law and CriminologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University Hospital GhentGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Institute for International Research on Criminal PolicyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations