Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The data from the survey in England and Wales is available on the website of Office for National Statistics.
- 3.
A security door is defined as a door that is reinforced with internal steel plates or steel bars and can be added with multiple locks.
- 4.
The timing between burglary and awareness of burglary in the surroundings is not specified in the CVS questionnaire so that we cannot avoid reverse causality between the two indicators. Moreover, as the data has no time dimension, Granger causality tests cannot be run. In order to check for potential endogeneity bias or reverse causality, we ran a set of different regression models excluding the burglary awareness variable and compared the results with the full model. Taking out the variable reduces the quality but does not change the relevancy of the specification. However, when taking out the variable from the model, we estimate a higher effect of other environmental variables, such as acts of vandalism and deterioration of the neighbourhood. This indicates that these three variables do proxy for the same concept, namely, local crime and delinquency. Results of the tests are available upon request.
- 5.
The data from the CVS survey does not enable us to have information regarding where the digital locks are located in the housing unit (at the entrance of the apartment block or in the housing unit itself).
- 6.
Combinations brought together under ‘other combinations’.
- 7.
Unlike the previous model, the victim households studied are only those which were victims during the year preceding the study, which reduces our sample size.
- 8.
There is no legal obligation in France to inform of the presence of CCTV in private premises.
Abbreviations
- CAPI:
-
Computer-assisted personal interviewing
- CASI:
-
Computer-assisted self-interviewing
- CESDIP:
-
Centre d’études sociologiques sur le droit et les institutions pénales
- CSEW:
-
Crime Survey for England and Wales
- CVS:
-
Cadre de Vie et Sécurité
- INSEE:
-
The National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies
- ONDRP:
-
French National Observatory of Crime and Criminal Justice
- SSMsi:
-
French Ministerial Statistical Department for Internal Security
References
Aebi, M., & Linde, A. (2010). Is there a crime drop in Europe? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 16(4), 251–277.
Australian Institute of Criminology. (2016). Australian crime: Facts & figures 2014. Canberra: Australian institute of Criminology.
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.
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.
Bettaieb, I., & Delbecque, V. (2016). Mesure de l'exposition aux cambriolages. Paris: INHESJ.
Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1975). The spatial patterning of burglary. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 14(2), 11–23.
Brown, R. (2015). Explaining the property crime drop. Canberra: Australian institute of criminology.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016). Criminal victimization, 2015. Washington D.C. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
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.
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.
Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Cromwell, P., Olson, J., & Avary, D. W. (1991). Breaking and entering. An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Newbury Park: Sage.
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.
Gabor, T., & Gottheil, E. (1984). Offender characteristics and spatial mobility: An empirical study and some policy implications. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26, 267–281.
Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger.
Hough, M. (1987). Offenders’ choice of target: findings from victim surveys. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3(4), 355–369.
Kuhns, J., Blevins, K., & Lee, S. (2012). Understanding decisions to burglarize from the offender’s perspective. Charlotte: UNC.
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.
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.
Mayhew, P., Aye Maung, N., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (1993). The 1992 British crime survey. London: HMSO.
Miethe, T., & David, M. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71(3), 741–759.
Morgan, F., & Clare, J. (2007). Household Burglary Trends in Western Australia. State Government of Western Australia.
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.
Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision-making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 935–949.
Office for National Statistics. (2016). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending Sept 2016. Statistical bulletin. London: Office for National Statistics.
ONDRP. (2015). La criminalité en France. Rapport annuel de l'Observatoire national de la délinquance et des réponses pénales 2015. Paris: CNRS Editions.
Pease, K., & Gill, M. (2011, September). Home security and place design: Some evidence and its policy implications. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from http://www.securedbydesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/home-security-and-place-design.pdf
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.
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.
Rountree, P., & Land, K. (2000). The generalizability of multilevel models of burglary victimization: A cross-city comparison. Social Science Research, 29, 284–305.
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.
Tilley, N. (2009). Crime prevention. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.
Triggs, S. (2005). Surveys of household burglary Part one (2002): Four police areas and national data compared. Canberra: Ministry of justice.
Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L., Tilley, N., & Farrell, G. (2014). The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal, 30(2), 646–664. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.30
van Dijk, P. (2008). The world of crime, breaking the silence on problems of security, justice and development across the world. London: Sage Publications.
van Dijk, J., Tseloni, A., & Farrell, G. (2012). The international crime drop – New directions in research (van Dijk, TSeloni, Farrell ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix D
Appendix D
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sourd, A., Delbecque, V. (2018). The Role of Security Devices Against Burglaries: Findings from the French Victimisation Survey. In: Reducing Burglary. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99942-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99942-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99941-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99942-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)