European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 393–415 | Cite as

Isolating Target And Neighbourhood Vulnerabilities In Crime Forecasting

  • Marco DugatoEmail author
  • Serena Favarin
  • Antonio Bosisio


Risk terrain modelling (RTM) is emerging as an effective approach for predicting how and where crimes concentrate within cities and regions. However, in its previous applications there is a tendency to overestimate the influence of external environmental risks and preventive factors. Most studies applying RTM have investigated factors associated with the characteristics of the urban setting, whilst only a limited number have focused on identifying the risks associated with the availability and the characteristics of potential targets for criminals. This study uses RTM to identify the spatial risk and protective factors related to residential burglaries in the city of Milan, Italy. Factors considered are the neighbourhood- and target-related contextual factors, the exposure to crime and potential mitigating strategies. The results show that when the place and target of the offence are intrinsically related a target-oriented approach to select factors is useful for increasing the understanding of why some locations are most likely to experience future crimes. Indeed, the peculiarities of the target itself are integral to understan both the decision-making of criminals and the overall level of crime risk. Related policy implications are discussed.


Risk terrain modelling Residential burglary Crime forecasting Crime prevention Risk factors Target-related risks 


  1. Alpert, G. P., Flynn, D., & Piquero, A. R. (2001). Effective community policing performance measures. Justice Research and Policy, 3(2), 79–94.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D., Chenery, S., & Pease, K. (1995). Biting back: Tackling repeat burglary and car crime. Home Office Police Research Group London.Google Scholar
  3. Andresen, M. A., & Malleson, N. (2011). Testing the stability of crime patterns: Implications for theory and policy. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 58–82.Google Scholar
  4. Andresen, M. A., Linning, S. J., & Malleson, N. (2016). Crime at places and spatial concentrations: exploring the spatial stability of property crime in Vancouver BC, 2003–2013. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(2), 255–275.Google Scholar
  5. Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the pattering of propery offences. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (2:115–48). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, T. (1995). Identifying, explaining, and targeting burglary “hot spots”. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 113–123.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, T., Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  8. Bernasco, W. (2006). Co-offending and the choice of target areas in burglary. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 3(3), 139–155.Google Scholar
  9. Bernasco, W. (2010). A sentimental journey to crime: effects of residential history on crime location choice. Criminology, 48(2), 389–416.Google Scholar
  10. Bernasco, W. (2014). Residential burglary. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 4381–4391). Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  11. 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, 296–315.Google Scholar
  12. Bernasco, W., & Ruiter, S. (2014). Crime location choice. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 691–99). Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  13. Bernasco, W., Johnson, S. D., & Ruiter, S. (2015). Learning where to offend: effects of past on future burglary locations. Applied Geography, 60(Supplement C), 120–129.Google Scholar
  14. Birch, C. P. D., Oom, S. P., & Beecham, J. A. (2007). Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 206(3), 347–359.Google Scholar
  15. Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 67–92.Google Scholar
  16. Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Pease, K. (2004). Prospective hot-spotting: the future of crime mapping? British Journal of Criminology, 44(5), 641–658.Google Scholar
  17. Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Policing problem places: Crime hot spots and effective prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., Waring, E. J., Green, L., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: a randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541–580.Google Scholar
  19. Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2010). The concentration and stability of gun violence at micro places in Boston, 1980–2008. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
  20. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: toward a pattern theory of crime’. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice: advances in criminological theory, vol. 5. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  21. Brantingham, P., & Brantingham, P. (1995). Criminality of place. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 5–26.Google Scholar
  22. Browning, C. R., Byron, R. A., Calder, C. A., Krivo, L. J., Kwan, M.-P., Lee, J.-Y., & Peterson, R. D. (2010). Commercial density, residential concentration, and crime: land use patterns and violence in neighborhood context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 329–357.Google Scholar
  23. Bruce, M. A., Roscigno, V. J., & McCall, P. L. (1998). Structure, context, and agency in the reproduction of black-on-black violence. Theoretical Criminology, 2(1), 29–55.Google Scholar
  24. Buck, A. J., Hakim, S., & Rengert, G. F. (1993). Burglar alarms and the choice behavior of burglars: a suburban phenomenon. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(5), 497–507.Google Scholar
  25. Budd, T. (1999). Burglary of domestic dwellings: findings from the British crime survey. In Home Office statistical bulletin. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  26. Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (2010). Risk terrain modeling manual. Newark: Rutgers Center on Public Security.Google Scholar
  27. Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (Eds.). (2011). Risk terrain modeling compendium. Newark: Rutgers Center on Public Security
  28. Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (Eds.). (2016). Risk terrain modeling: Crime prediction and risk reduction. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Miller, J. (2011). Risk terrain modeling: brokering criminological theory and GIS methods for crime forecasting. Justice Quarterly, 28, 360–381.Google Scholar
  30. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Piza, E. L. (2013). Joint utility of event-dependent and environmental crime analysis techniques for violent crime forecasting. Crime & Delinquency, 59(2), 243–270.Google Scholar
  31. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., Barnum, J. D., & Piza, E. L. (2015). Risk terrain modeling for spatial risk assessment. City, 17(1), 7.Google Scholar
  32. Capowich, G. E. (2003). The conditioning effects of neighborhood ecology on burglary victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 39–61.Google Scholar
  33. Chainey, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2005). GIS and crime mapping. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Chainey, S., Tompson, L., & Uhlig, S. (2008). The utility of hotspot mapping for predicting spatial patterns of crime. Security Journal, 21, 4–28.Google Scholar
  35. Clare, J. (2011). Examination of systematic variations in burglars’ domain-specific perceptual and procedural skills. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(3), 199–214.Google Scholar
  36. Clare, J., Fernandez, J., & Morgan, F. (2009). Formal evaluation of the impact of barriers and connectors on residential burglars’ macro-level offending location choices. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 139–158.Google Scholar
  37. Clarke, R. V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods. Police Research Series paper 112. London: Great Britain Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.Google Scholar
  38. Cohen, L. E., & Cantor, D. (1980). The determinants of larceny: an empirical and theoretical study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17(2), 140–159.Google Scholar
  39. Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44(2), 431–464.Google Scholar
  40. Cromwell, P. F., Marks, A., Olson, J. N., & Avary, D.’. A. W. (1991a). Group effects on decision-making by burglars. Psychological Reports, 69(2), 579–588.Google Scholar
  41. Cromwell, P. F., Olson, J. N., & Avary, D.’. A. W. (1991b). Breaking and entering: An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. di Milano, C. (2015). Milano - I Numeri Del Comune. Rapporto Ubers 2015. Urbes. Milan: ISTAT.Google Scholar
  43. Drawve, G. (2016). A metric comparison of predictive hot spot techniques and RTM. Justice Quarterly, 33(3), 369–397.Google Scholar
  44. Drawve, G., Moak, S. C., & Berthelot, E. R. (2016a). Predictability of gun crimes: a comparison of hot spot and risk terrain modelling techniques. Policing and Society, 26(3), 312–331.Google Scholar
  45. Drawve, G., Thomas, S. A., & Walker, J. T. (2016b). Bringing the physical environment back into neighborhood research: the utility of RTM for developing an aggregate neighborhood risk of crime measure. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 21–29.Google Scholar
  46. Dugato, M. (2013). Assessing the validity of risk terrain modeling in a European City: preventing robberies in Milan. Crime Mapping, 5(1), 63–89.Google Scholar
  47. Dugato, M., Caneppele, S., Favarin, S., & Rotondi, M. (2015). ‘Prevedere i furti in abitazione’. Transcrime Research in Brief. Serie Italia. Trento: Transcrime - Università degli Studi di Trento, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.Google Scholar
  48. Dugato, M., Calderoni, F., & Berlusconi, G. (2017). Forecasting organized crime homicides: Risk terrain modeling of camorra violence in Naples, Italy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
  49. Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place. Monsey: Willow Tree.Google Scholar
  50. Eck, J. E., Chainey, S., Cameron, J. G., Leitner, M., & Wilson, R. E. (2005). Mapping crime: Understanding hot spots. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice - National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  51. Evans, D. J. (1989). Geographic analysis of residential burglary. In D. J. Evans & D. T. Herbert (Eds.), The geography of crime (pp. 86–107). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Farrell, G. (1995). Preventing repeat victimization. Crime and Justice, 19, 469–534.Google Scholar
  53. Farrell, G., & Pease, K. G. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimisation and its implications for crime prevention. Police Research Group Crime Prevention Unit paper no. 46. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  54. Farrell, G., & Pease, P. (1994). Crime seasonality: domestic disputes and residential burglary in Merseyside 1988–90. The British Journal of Criminology, 34(4), 487–498.Google Scholar
  55. Farrell, G., Phillips, C., & Pease, K. (1995). Like taking candy: why does repeat victimization occur? British Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 384–399.Google Scholar
  56. Fass, S. M., & Francis, J. (2004). Where have all the hot goods gone? The role of pawnshops. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(2), 156–179.Google Scholar
  57. Favarin, S. (2015). Testing and explaining crime concentrations outside the U.S.: The City of Milan. Milan: Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore.Google Scholar
  58. Favarin, S. (2018). This must be the place (to commit a crime): Testing the law of crime concentration in Milan, Italy. European Journal of Criminology.
  59. Gerell, M. (2018). Bus stops and violence, are risky places really risky? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research.
  60. Groff, E. R., & McCord, E. S. (2011). The role of neighborhood parks as crime generators. Security Journal, 25, 1–24.Google Scholar
  61. Hamilton, L. C. (2013). Statistics with STATA: version 12, 8th edn. Belmont: Cengage.Google Scholar
  62. Hipp, J. R. (2011). Spreading the wealth: the effect of the distribution of income and race/ethnicity across households and neighborhoods on City crime trajectories. Criminology, 49(3), 631–665.Google Scholar
  63. Homel, R., Macintyre S., & Wortley, R. 2014. How house 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). Crime Science Series. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  65. Johnson, S. D. (2010). A brief history of the analysis of crime concentration. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 21(4–5), 349–370.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, D. (2013). The space/time behaviour of dwelling burglars: Finding near repeat patterns in serial offender data. Applied Geography, 41(Supplement C), 139–146.Google Scholar
  67. Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004). The stability of space-time clusters of burglary. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 55–65.Google Scholar
  68. Johnson, S. D., Bernasco, W., Bowers, K. J., Elffers, H., Ratcliffe, J., Rengert, G., & Townsley, M. (2007). Space–time patterns of risk: a cross national assessment of residential burglary victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(3), 201–219.Google Scholar
  69. Kennedy, L. W., Caplan, J. M., & Piza, E. (2011). Risk clusters, hotspots, and spatial intelligence: risk terrain modeling as an algorithm for police resource allocation strategies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(3), 339–362.Google Scholar
  70. Kennedy, L. W., Caplan, J. M., Piza, E. L., & Buccine-Schraeder, H. (2016). Vulnerability and exposure to crime: applying risk terrain modeling to the study of assault in Chicago. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 9(4), 529–548.Google Scholar
  71. Kinney, J. B., Brantingham, P. L., Wuschke, K., Kirk, M. G., & Brantingham, P. J. (2008). Crime attractors, generators and detractors: land use and urban crime opportunities. Built Environment, 34(1), 62–74.Google Scholar
  72. 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. Faculteit Bestuurskunde, Enschede, the Netherlands: Universiteit Twente.Google Scholar
  73. Kleemans, E. R. (2001). Repeat burglary victimization: results of empirical research in the Netherlands. Crime Prevention Studies, 12, 55–68.Google Scholar
  74. Krebs, C. J. (1998). Ecological methodology (2nd edn.). Menlo Park: Pearson.Google Scholar
  75. Kubrin, C. E., & Herting, J. R. (2003). Neighborhood correlates of homicide trends: an analysis using growth-curve modeling. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(3), 329–350.Google Scholar
  76. Lersch, K. M., & Hart, T. C. (2011). Space, time, and crime (3rd edn.). Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
  77. Levine, N. (2008). The “hottest” part of a hotspot: Comments on “the utility of hotspot mapping for predicting spatial patterns of crime”. Security Journal, 21(4), 295–302.Google Scholar
  78. Lister, S. C., & Wall, D. S. (2008). Deconstructing distraction burglary: An ageist offence? In SSRN scholarly paper ID 1085050. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network Scholar
  79. Matthews, R., Pease, C., & Pease, K. (2001). Repeated Bank robbery: Themes and variations’. In G. Farrell & K. Pease Repeat victimization. Crime prevention studies, vol. 12 (pp. 153–64). . Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  80. Mohler, G. O., Short, M. B., Brantingham, P. J., Schoenberg, F. P., & Tita, G. E. (2011). Self-exciting point process modeling of crime. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(493), 100–108.Google Scholar
  81. 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, 48(4), 515–549.Google Scholar
  82. Moreto, W. D. (2010). Risk factors of urban residential bulrgary. RTM Insights, Research Brief Series Dedicated to Shared Knowledge, 4, 1–3.Google Scholar
  83. Moreto, W. D., Piza, E. L., & Caplan, J. M. (2014). “A plague on both your houses?”: Risks, repeats and reconsiderations of urban residential burglary. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1102–1126.Google Scholar
  84. Mustaine, E. E. (1997). Victimization risks and routine activities: a theoretical examination using a gender-specific and domain-specific model. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(1), 41.Google Scholar
  85. Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 935–949.Google Scholar
  86. Ohyama, T., & Amemiya, M. (2018). Applying crime prediction techniques to Japan: A comparison between risk terrain modeling and other methods. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research.
  87. Onat, I., & Gul, Z. (2018). Terrorism risk forecasting by ideology. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research.
  88. Perry, W. L., McInnis, B., Price, C. C., Smith, S. C., & Hollywood, J. S. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  89. Polvi, N. (1990). Repeat victimization. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 8–11.Google Scholar
  90. Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1991). The time course of repeat burglary victimization. The British Journal of Criminology, 31(4), 411–414.Google Scholar
  91. Ratcliffe, J. H. (2002). Aoristic signatures and the Spatio-temporal analysis of high volume crime patterns. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(1), 23–43.Google Scholar
  92. Ratcliffe, J. H., & Mccullagh, M. J. (1998). Identifying repeat victimization with GIS. The British Journal of Criminology, 38(4), 651–662.Google Scholar
  93. Rengert, G., & Wasilchick, J. (1985). Suburban burglary: A time and a place for everything. Springfield: Thomas.Google Scholar
  94. Roncek, D. W. (2000). Schools and crime. In V. Goldsmith, P. G. McGuire, J. H. Mollenkopf, & T. A. Ross (Eds.), Analyzing crime patterns: Frontiers of practice (pp. 153–165). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  95. Rosser, G., Davies, T., Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D., & Cheng, T. (2017). Predictive crime mapping: arbitrary grids or street networks? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(3), 569–594.Google Scholar
  96. Rountree, P. W., & Land, K. C. (2000). The generalizability of multilevel models of burglary victimization: a cross-city comparison. Social Science Research, 29(2), 284–305.Google Scholar
  97. Ruiter, S. (2017). Crime location choice. The Oxford Handbook of Offender Decision Making, 6, 398.Google Scholar
  98. Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: a randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.Google Scholar
  99. Shover, N. (1991). Burglary. Crime and Justice, 14, 73–113.Google Scholar
  100. Snook, B., Dhami, M. K., & Kavanagh, J. M. (2011). Simply criminal: predicting burglars’ occupancy decisions with a simple heuristic. Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 316–326.Google Scholar
  101. Sorenson, D. W. M. (2003). The nature and prevention of residential burglary: A review of the international literature with an eye toward prevention in Denmark. Copenhagen: Justitsministeriet.Google Scholar
  102. Taylor, R. B. (1997). Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods: ecology, microecology, and systematic model of social disorganization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(1), 113–155.Google Scholar
  103. Taylor, M., & Nee, C. (1988). The role of cues in simulated residential burglary-a preliminary investigation. British Journal of Criminology, 28, 396.Google Scholar
  104. Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2000). Repeat burglary victimisation: spatial and temporal patterns. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33(1), 37–63.Google Scholar
  105. Townsley, M., Birks, D., Bernasco, W., Ruiter, S., Johnson, S. D., White, G., & Baum, S. (2015). Burglar target selection: a cross-national comparison. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
  106. Townsley, M., Birks, D., Ruiter, S., Bernasco, W., & White, G. (2016). Target selection models with preference variation between offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 283–304.Google Scholar
  107. Tseloni, A., Osborn, D. R., Trickett, A., & Pease, K. (2002). Modelling property crime using the British crime survey: what have we learnt? British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 109–128.Google Scholar
  108. Tseloni, A., Thompson, R., Grove, L., Tilley, N., & Farrell, G. (2017). The effectiveness of burglary security devices. Security Journal, 30(2), 646–664.Google Scholar
  109. Vandeviver, C., Neutens, T., van Daele, S., Geurts, D., & Beken, T. V. (2015). A discrete spatial choice model of burglary target selection at the house-level. Applied Geography, 64(Supplement C), 24–34.Google Scholar
  110. Walsh, D. (1986). Victim selection procedures among economic criminals: The rational choice perspective’. In D. B. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 39–52). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  111. Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S.-M. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology, 42(2), 283–322.Google Scholar
  112. Weisburd, D., Bruinsma, G. J. N., & Bernasco, W. (2009). Units of analysis in geographic criminology: Historical development, critical issues, and open questions. In D. Weisburd, G. J. N. Bruinsma, & W. Bernasco (Eds.), Putting crime in its place: Unit of analysis in geographic criminology (pp. 3–31). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  113. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place. Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Wells, W., Wu, L., & Ye, X. (2012). Patterns of near-repeat gun assaults in Houston. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(2), 186–212.Google Scholar
  115. Wilcox, P., Quisenberry, N., Cabrera, D. T., & Jones, S. (2004). Busy places and broken windows? Toward defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. Sociological Quarterly, 45(2), 185–207.Google Scholar
  116. Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology, 45(4), 771–803.Google Scholar
  117. Wright, R., & Decker S. H. (1994). Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential break-ins. Lebanon: UPNE.Google Scholar
  118. Wright, R., Logie, R. H., & Decker, S. H. (1995). Criminal expertise and offender decision making: an experimental study of the target selection process in residential burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32(1), 39–53.Google Scholar
  119. Youstin, T. J., Nobles, M. R., Ward, J. T., & Cook, C. L. (2011). Assessing the generalizability of the near repeat phenomenon. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(10), 1042–1063.Google Scholar
  120. Yu, S.-S. V. (2011). Do bus stops increase crime opportunities? El Paso: LFB Scholarly.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore – TranscrimeMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations