The Role of Security Devices Against Burglaries: Findings from the French Victimisation Survey

  • Amandine Sourd
  • Vincent DelbecqueEmail author


This chapter focuses on the efficiency of security devices against burglary. We analyse burglary as a three-step sequence – targeting, forced entry, theft – rather than a homogeneous victimisation. Different factors related to the dwelling, the household or the environment have aggravating or protecting effects on the risk of burglary. Security devices are efficient in protecting the housing unit against such crime though their effects are more or less important depending on the stage in the process. Results suggest that environmental factors are more important in the choice of the target (targeting stage). Security devices are more efficient during the forced entry compared to the targeting stage. Alarms and security doors appear to be more efficient against forced entry into either houses or apartments and especially if they are combined with other devices. Conversely, environmental factors have a smaller impact on forced entry. During the final stage, the presence of someone in the housing unit reduces the risk of theft. Alarms in houses and security doors in apartments also have a protecting effect on theft.


Burglary Victimisation survey Security devices Effectiveness Protection 



Computer-assisted personal interviewing


Computer-assisted self-interviewing


Centre d’études sociologiques sur le droit et les institutions pénales


Crime Survey for England and Wales


Cadre de Vie et Sécurité


The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies


French National Observatory of Crime and Criminal Justice


French Ministerial Statistical Department for Internal Security


  1. Aebi, M., & Linde, A. (2010). Is there a crime drop in Europe? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 16(4), 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Institute of Criminology. (2016). Australian crime: Facts & figures 2014. Canberra: Australian institute of Criminology.Google Scholar
  3. Bernasco, W., & Luykx, F. (2003). Effects of attractiveness, opportunity and accessibility to burglars on residential burglary rates of urban neighborhoods. Criminology, 41(3), 981–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernasco, W., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. British Journal of Criminology, 45(3), 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bettaieb, I., & Delbecque, V. (2016). Mesure de l'exposition aux cambriolages. Paris: INHESJ.Google Scholar
  6. Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1975). The spatial patterning of burglary. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 14(2), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, R. (2015). Explaining the property crime drop. Canberra: Australian institute of criminology.Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). Criminal victimization, 2015. Washington D.C. Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  9. Capone, D., & Nichols, W. (1975). Crime and distance: An analysis of offender behavior in space. Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers, 7, 45–49.Google Scholar
  10. Ceccato, V., Haining, R., & Signoretta, P. (2002). Exploring offence statistics in Stockholm City using spatial analysis tools. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cromwell, P., Olson, J., & Avary, D. W. (1991). Breaking and entering. An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Flatley, J., Kershaw, C., Smith, K., Chaplin, R., & Moon, D. (2010). Crime in England and Wales: Findings from the British crime survey and police recorded crime. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  14. Gabor, T., & Gottheil, E. (1984). Offender characteristics and spatial mobility: An empirical study and some policy implications. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26, 267–281.Google Scholar
  15. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  16. Hough, M. (1987). Offenders’ choice of target: findings from victim surveys. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3(4), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhns, J., Blevins, K., & Lee, S. (2012). Understanding decisions to burglarize from the offender’s perspective. Charlotte: UNC.Google Scholar
  18. Lammers, M., Menting, B., Ruiter, S., & Bernasco, W. (2015). Biting once, twice: The influence of prior on subsequent crime location choice. Criminology, 53(3), 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynch, J., & Cantor, D. (1992). Ecological and behavioral influence on property victimization at home: Implications for opportunity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquancy, 29(3), 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayhew, P., Aye Maung, N., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (1993). The 1992 British crime survey. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  21. Miethe, T., & David, M. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71(3), 741–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morgan, F., & Clare, J. (2007). Household Burglary Trends in Western Australia. State Government of Western Australia.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, R., & Eder, S. (2010). Acquisitive and other property crime. In Crime in England and Wales 2009/10: Findings from the British crime survey and police recorded crime (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/10 ed., pp. 79–107). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  24. Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision-making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 935–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Office for National Statistics. (2016). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending Sept 2016. Statistical bulletin. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  26. ONDRP. (2015). La criminalité en France. Rapport annuel de l'Observatoire national de la délinquance et des réponses pénales 2015. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  27. Pease, K., & Gill, M. (2011, September). Home security and place design: Some evidence and its policy implications. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from
  28. Perron-Bailly, E. (2013). Caractéristiques des cambriolages et des tentatives de cambriolages de la résidence principale décrites par les ménages s'étant déclarés victimes sur deux anslors des enquêtes "Cadre de vie et sécurité" de 2011 à 2013. Paris: INHESJ.Google Scholar
  29. Rhodes, W., & Conly, C. (1981). Crime and mobility: An empirical study. In P. B. Brantingham (Ed.), Environmental criminology (pp. 167–188). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rountree, P., & Land, K. (2000). The generalizability of multilevel models of burglary victimization: A cross-city comparison. Social Science Research, 29, 284–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rountree, P., Land, K., & Miethe, T. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32(3), 387–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tilley, N. (2009). Crime prevention. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Triggs, S. (2005). Surveys of household burglary Part one (2002): Four police areas and national data compared. Canberra: Ministry of justice.Google Scholar
  34. Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L., Tilley, N., & Farrell, G. (2014). The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal, 30(2), 646–664.
  35. van Dijk, P. (2008). The world of crime, breaking the silence on problems of security, justice and development across the world. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. van Dijk, J., Tseloni, A., & Farrell, G. (2012). The international crime drop – New directions in research (van Dijk, TSeloni, Farrell ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Kesteren, J., Mayhew, P., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimisation in seventeen industrialised countries: Key findings from the 2000 international criminal victimization survey. The Hague: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Observatory of Crime and Criminal JusticeParisFrance

Personalised recommendations