Domestic Burglary: Burglar Responses to Target Attractiveness

  • Rachel ArmitageEmail author


Secured by Design (SBD) is a place-based approach to crime reduction that brings together standards of physical security with the broader principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) to set minimum requirements that enable properties to be awarded SBD status. Developed in 1989 in England, SBD is managed by Police Crime Prevention Initiatives and delivered by Designing Out Crime Officers (DOCOs), Architectural Liaison Officers (ALOs) and Crime Prevention Design Advisors (CPDAs) located within each police force. Whilst the effectiveness of the scheme has been evaluated, so far studies have drawn only on police-recorded or self-reported crime. This study adds offender perceptions to that collection of evaluations. Twenty-two prolific burglars were asked to interpret a series of 16 images of residential housing. The results confirm that housing design plays a key role in influencing offender decision-making, the risk of surveillance and standards of physical security being primary deterrents. The findings highlight areas for improvement within the scheme, particularly relating to measures based upon the concepts of defensible space and management and maintenance.


Secured by Design (SBD) Burglary CPTED Crime prevention Police 



Association of Chief Police Officers


Architectural Liaison Officer


Crime Prevention Design Advisor


Crime Prevention through Environmental Design


Department for Communities and Local Government


Designing Out Crime Officer


Office of the Deputy Prime Minister


Secured by Design


  1. Armitage, R. (2000). An evaluation of secured by design housing within West Yorkshire – Briefing Note 7/00. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage, R. (2004). Secured By design – An investigation of its history, Development and future role in crime reduction. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield.Google Scholar
  3. Armitage, R. (2006). Sustainability versus safety: Confusion, conflict and contradiction in designing out crime. In G. Farrell, K. Bowers, S. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime prevention: Essays in Honour of Ken Pease, Crime prevention studies (Vol. 21, pp. 81–110). Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press and Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Armitage, R. (2013). Crime prevention through housing design: Policy and practice, Crime Prevention and Security Management Book Series. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage, R. (2017a). Burglars’ take on crime prevention through environmental design. Security Journal, 31, 285. Scholar
  6. Armitage, R. (2017b). Crime prevention through environmental design. In R. Wortley & M. Townsley (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 259–285). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Armitage, R., & Monchuk, L. (2011). Sustaining the crime reduction impact of secured by design: 1999 to 2009. Security Journal, 24(4), 320–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Armitage, R., Monchuk, L., & Rogerson, M. (2010). It looks good, but what is it like to live there? Assessing the impact of award winning design on crime. Special Volume of European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birks, D., & Davies, T. (2017). Street network structure and crime risk: An agent-based investigation of the encounter and enclosure hypothesis. Criminology, 55(4), 900–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowers, K. J., & Guerette, R.T. (2014). Effectiveness of situational crime prevention. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Editors in Chief) Encyclopaedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 1318–1329). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1993). Environment, routine and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. Advances in Criminological Theory, 5, 259–294.Google Scholar
  12. Brooke, M. (2013). Secured by design – The story so far. Safer Communities, 12(4), 154–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, B., & Bentley, D. (1993). Residential burglars judge risk: The role of territoriality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Budd, T. (1999). Burglary of domestic dwellings. Findings from the British Crime Survey. Issue 4/1999. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  16. Clarke, R. V. (1992). Introduction. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention – Successful case studies (pp. 3–36). New York: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  17. Copes, H., & Hochstetler, A. (2014). Consenting to talk: Why inmates participate in prison research. In P. Cromwell & M. Birzer (Eds.), Their own words: Criminals on crime (pp. 19–33). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cozens, P., Hillier, D., & Prescott, G. (2001). Defensible space: Burglars and police evaluate urban residential design. Security Journal., 14, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cromwell, P. F., & Olson, J. N. (1991). Breaking and entering: An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Davies, T., & Johnson, S. D. (2014). Examining the relationship between road structure and burglary risk via quantitative network analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 481. Scholar
  21. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2005). Planning policy statement 1: Delivering sustainable development. Accessed 21 Mar 2012.
  22. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2006). Circular 01/2006: Guidance on changes to the development control system. London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  23. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2008). The code for sustainable homes: Setting the standard in sustainability in new homes. London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  24. Department for Communities and Local Government (2011). Planning policy statement 3: Housing. Accessed 21 Mar 2012.
  25. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012a). External review of government planning practice guidance. London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  26. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2012b). National Planning Policy Framework. London: DCLG.Google Scholar
  27. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. (1999). Towards an urban renaissance – Final report of the urban task force. London: DETR.Google Scholar
  28. Department of the Environment. (1994). Planning out crime: Circular 5/94. London: DoE.Google Scholar
  29. Elffers, H. (2010). Misinformation, misunderstanding and misleading as validity threats to accounts of offending. In W. Bernasco (Ed.), Offenders on offending: Learning about crime from criminals (pp. 13–22). Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  30. Everson, S. (2000). Repeat offenders and repeat victims: Mutual attraction or misfortune? Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Huddersfield.Google Scholar
  31. Great Britain. (1998). Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Chapter 37. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. Homel, R., Macintyre, S., & Wortley, R. (2014). How burglars decide on targets: A computer-based scenario approach. In B. LeClerc & R. Wortley (Eds.), Cognition and crime: Offender decision making and script analyses (pp. 26–47). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Housing Corporation. (2003). Scheme development standards (5th ed.). London: Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  34. Housing Corporation. (2007). Design and quality standards. London: Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  35. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  36. Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, S., & Bowers, K. J. (2010). Permeability and burglary risk: Are Cul-de-Sacs safer? Quantitative Journal of Criminology, 26(1), 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2014). How guardianship dynamics may vary across the street network: A case study of residential burglary. In Liber amicorum voor Henk Elffers. NSCR: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  39. Jones, A., Valero-Silva, N., & Lucas, D. (2016). The effects of ‘secure warm modern’ homes in Nottingham: Decent homes impact study. Nottingham: Nottingham City Homes.Google Scholar
  40. Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions: Self-serving or relationship-serving biases? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Montoya, L., Junger, M., & Ongena, Y. (2016). The relation between residential property and its surroundings and day- and night-time residential burglary. Environment and Behavior, 09(2014), 516–549. Scholar
  42. Moss, K., & Pease, K. (1999). Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Section 17 a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 1(4), 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nee, C. (2003). Research on burglary at the end of the millennium: A grounded approach to understanding crime. Security Journal, 16(3), 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nee, C., White, M., Woolford, K., Pascu, T., Barker, L., & Wainwright, L. (2015). New methods for examining expertise in burglars in natural and simulated environments: preliminary findings. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(5), 507–513. Scholar
  46. Newman, O. (1973). Defensible space: People and design in the Violent City. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  47. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2000). Our towns and cities: The future – Delivering an urban renaissance. London: ODPM.Google Scholar
  48. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office. (2004). Safer places – The planning system and crime prevention. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  49. Pascoe, T. (1999). Evaluation of secured by design in public sector housing – Final report. Watford: BRE.Google Scholar
  50. Pease, K. (2001). Cracking crime through design. London: Design Council.Google Scholar
  51. Pease, K., & Gill, M. (2011). Direct and indirect costs and benefits of home security and place design. Leicester: Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International Ltd..Google Scholar
  52. Reppetto, T. A. (1974). Residential crime. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  53. Reynald, D. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reynald, D. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The future of Newman’s defensible space theory linking defensible space and the routine activities of place. European Journal of Criminology, 6(1), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Secured by Design. (2016). Secured by Design New Homes – 2014. London: Secured by Design.Google Scholar
  57. Shaw, M., & Pease, K. (2000). Research on repeat victimisation in Scotland: Final report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.Google Scholar
  58. Sidebottom, A. L., Tilley, N., Johnson, S., Bowers, K., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Bullock, K. (2017a). Gating alleys to reduce crime: A meta-analysis and realist synthesis. Justice Quarterly, 35, 55. Scholar
  59. Sidebottom, A.L., Armitage, R., Tompson, L. (2017b, March). Reducing crime through secured by design: A systematic review. Secured by Design National Training Event 2017. Northampton.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, R. (2002). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): Yes, no, maybe, unknowable and all of the above. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 413–426). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Taylor, R., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1987). Environmental design, crime and prevention: An examination of community dynamics. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of the Research, 8, 387–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teedon, P., Reid, T., Griffiths, P., Lindsay, K., Glen, S., McFayden, A., & Cruz, P. (2009). Secured by design impact evaluation final report. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University.Google Scholar
  63. Tseloni, A. (2006). Multilevel modeling of the number of property crimes: Household and area effects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 169(2), 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tseloni, A., Ntzoufras, I., Nicolaou, A., & Pease, K. (2010). Concentration of personal and household crimes in England and Wales. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 21(45), 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L. E., Tilley, N., & Farrell, G. (2014). The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal (advance online publication 30 June 2014;
  66. Van Der Voordt, T. J. M., & Van Wegen, H. B. R. (1990). Testing building plans for public safety: Usefulness of the delft checklist. Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, 5(2), 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van Gelder, J.-L., Nee, C., Otte, M., van Sintemaartensdijk, I., Demetriou, A., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2017). Virtual burglary: Exploring the potential of virtual reality to study burglary in action. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(1), 29–62. Scholar
  68. Vollaard, B., & Ours, J. C. V. (2011). Does regulation of built-in security reduce crime? Evidence from a natural experiment. The Economic Journal., 121(May), 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wiles, P., & Costello, A. (2000). The ‘road to nowhere’: The evidence for travelling criminals (Home Office Research Study 207). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  71. Winchester, S., & Jackson, H. (1982). Residential burglary: The limits of prevention (Home Office Research Study Number 74). London: Home Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HuddersfieldHuddersfieldUK

Personalised recommendations