Advertisement

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Typologies of suburban guardians: understanding the role of responsibility, opportunities, and routine activities in facilitating surveillance

  • Emily MoirEmail author
  • Timothy C. Hart
  • Danielle M. Reynald
  • Anna Stewart
Original Article

Abstract

Research suggests that personal and situational characteristics influence how and when residents provide guardianship over where they live (Reynald in J Res Crime Delinq 47(3): 358–390, 2010). However, there is limited empirical scholarship regarding what motivates residents to act as guardians and control crime in different contexts. The current study explores the role motivation and opportunity play in facilitating monitoring and intervention among potential guardians against crime in suburban Australia. Twenty semi-structured interviews with Brisbane suburban residents were conducted and suggested the existence of four typologies of suburban guardians: active, opportunistic, responsive, and non-guardians. Factors crucial to facilitating monitoring include the physical design of houses, relationships with neighbours, prior victimisation, and daily routine activities. Direct intervention is supported by feelings of responsibility and capability. Other themes found to support guardianship decision-making were also identified, and results suggest that residents supervise and monitor their street regardless of current crime rates. Implications for theory and practice, and directions for future research, are discussed.

Keywords

Routine activity theory Monitoring Surveillance Active guardianship Suburbs Intervention 

References

  1. Armitage, R. 2013. Crime Prevention Through Housing Design: Policy and Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011. 2011 Census Community Profiles (website). Available online http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/3GBRI?opendocument&navpos=230. Accessed 3 May 2013.
  3. Brantingham, P.J., and P.L. Brantingham. 1995. Criminality of Place: Crime Generators and Crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 3(3): 1–26.Google Scholar
  4. Brantingham, P.J., P.L. Brantingham, and M.A. Andresen. 2017. Geometry of Crime and Crime Pattern Theory. In Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis, 2nd ed, ed. R. Wortley and M. Townsley. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Dines, M., and T. Vermeulen. 2013. Introduction. In New Suburban Stories, ed. M. Dines and T. Vermeulen. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Ekblom, P. 2011. Crime Prevention, Security and Community Safety Using the 51s Framework. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  7. Felson, M. 1995. Those Who Discourage Crime. In Crime and Place: Crime Prevention Studies, ed. J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  8. Felson, M. 2006. Crime and Nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Felson, M., and M. Eckert. 2016. Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, P., J.I. Krueger, T. Greitemeyer, C. Vogrincic, A. Kastenmuller, D. Frey, M. Heene, M. Wicher, and M. Kainbacher. 2011. The Bystander-Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review on Bystander Intervention in Dangerous and Non-Dangerous Emergencies. Psychological Bulletin 137(4): 517–537.Google Scholar
  11. Foster, J. 1995. Informal Social Control and Community Crime Prevention. The British Journal of Criminology 35(4): 563–583.Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg, S.W., and W.M. Rohe. 1984. Neighborhood Design and Crime: A Test of Two Perspectives. Journal of the American Planning Association 50(1): 48–61.Google Scholar
  13. Groff, E.R. 2015. Informal Social Control and Crime Events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31(1): 90–106.Google Scholar
  14. Hart, T.C., and T.D. Miethe. 2008. Exploring Bystander Presence and Intervention in Nonfatal Violent Victimization: When Does Helping Really Help? Violence and Victims 23(5): 637–651.Google Scholar
  15. Hollis-Peel, M.E., D.M. Reynald, and B. Welsh. 2012. Guardianship and Crime: An International Comparative Study of Guardianship in Action. Crime, Law and Social Change 58(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  16. Hollis-Peel, M.E., and B. Welsh. 2014. What Makes a Guardian Capable? A Test of Guardianship in Action. Security Journal 27(3): 320–337.Google Scholar
  17. Huston, T.L., M. Ruggiero, R. Conner, and G. Geis. 1981. Bystander Intervention into Crime: A Study Based on Naturally-occurring Episodes. Social Psychology Quarterly 44(1): 14–23.Google Scholar
  18. Massey, J.L., M.D. Krohn, and L.M. Bonati. 1989. Property Crime and the Routine Activities of Individuals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26(4): 378–400.Google Scholar
  19. Miethe, T.D., T.C. Hart, and W.C. Regoeczi. 2008. The Conjunctive Analysis of Case Configurations: An Exploratory Method for Discrete Multivariate Analyses of Crime Data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 24(2): 227–241.Google Scholar
  20. Miles, M.B., A.M. Huberman, and J. Saldana. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Moir, E., A. Stewart, D.M. Reynald, and T.C. Hart. 2017. Guardianship in Action (GIA) Within Brisbane Suburbs: Examining the Relationship Between Guardianship Intensity and Crime, and Changes Across Time. Criminal Justice Review, Advanced online publication.Google Scholar
  22. Mustaine, E.E., and R. Tewksbury. 2000. Comparing the Lifestyles of Victims, Offenders, and Victim-Offenders: A Routine Activity Theory Assessment of Similarities and Differences for Criminal Incident Participants. Sociological Focus 33(3): 339–362.Google Scholar
  23. Poyner, B., and B. Webb. 1991. Crime Free Housing. Oxford: Butterworth-Architecture.Google Scholar
  24. Ratcliffe, J. 2001. Policing Urban Burglary. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  25. Reynald, D.M. 2009. Guardianship in Action: Developing a New Tool for Measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  26. Reynald, D.M. 2010. Guardians on Guardianship: Factors Affecting the Willingness to Supervise, the Ability to Detect Potential Offenders, and the Willingness to Intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(3): 358–390.Google Scholar
  27. Reynald, D.M. 2011a. Factors Associated with the Guardianship of Places: Assessing the Relative Importance of the Spatio-physical and Sociodemographic Contexts in Generating Opportunities for Capable Guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48(1): 110–142.Google Scholar
  28. Reynald, D.M. 2011b. Guarding Against Crime: Measuring Guardianship within Routine Activity Theory. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Reynald, D.M., and H. Elffers. 2015. The Routine Activity of Guardianship: Comparing Self-Reports of Guardianship Intensity Patterns with Proxy Measures. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 17(4): 211–232.Google Scholar
  30. Reynald, D. M., and Moir, E. 2018. Who is Watching: Exploring Individual Factors That Explain Supervision Patterns Among Residential Guardians. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, advance online publication.Google Scholar
  31. Robinson, M.B. 1999. Lifestyles, Routine Activities, and Residential Burglary Victimization. Journal of Crime and Justice 22(1): 27–56.Google Scholar
  32. Schaefer, L., Mazerolle, L., and Kapnoulla, M. 2017. Different Actions for Different Crimes: Explaining Individual Action in Local Crime Problems. Journal of Community Psychology 45(7): 922–939.Google Scholar
  33. Spencer, A., Gill, J, and Schmahmann, L. 2015. Urban or Suburban? Examining the Density of Australian Cities in a Global Context. State of Australian Cities Conference 2015. Sydney.Google Scholar
  34. Stahura, J.M., and J.J. Sloan. 1988. Urban Stratification of Places, Routine Activities and Suburban Crime Rates. Social Forces 66(4): 1102–1118.Google Scholar
  35. Warner, B.D. 2007. Directly Intervene or Call the Authorities? A Study of Forms of Neighborhood Social Control Within a Social Disorganization Framework. Criminology 45(1): 99–129.Google Scholar
  36. Weisburd, D. 2012. Bringing Social Context Back into the Equation. Criminology & Public Policy 11(2): 317–326.Google Scholar
  37. Wickes, R., R. Zahnow, L. Schaefer, and M. Sparkes-Carroll. 2017. Neighborhood Guardianship and Property Crime Victimization. Crime & Delinquency 63(5): 519–544.Google Scholar
  38. Wilcox, P., T.D. Madensen, and M.S. Tillyer. 2007. Guardianship in Context: Implications for Burglary Victimization Risk and Prevention. Criminology 45(4): 771–803.Google Scholar
  39. Wortley, R. 2012. Exploring the Person-Situation Interaction in Situational Crime Prevention. In The Reasoning Criminologist: Essays in Honour of Ronald V. Clarke, ed. N. Tilley and G. Farrell. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Moir
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Timothy C. Hart
    • 2
  • Danielle M. Reynald
    • 1
    • 3
  • Anna Stewart
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Griffith Criminology InstituteGriffith UniversityMt GravattAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeThe University of TampaTampaUSA
  3. 3.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityMt GravattAustralia

Personalised recommendations