Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 335–354 | Cite as

Territorial functioning and victimisation: conceptualisation and scale development

  • Aldrin Abdullah
  • Massoomeh Hedayati MarzbaliEmail author
  • Helen Woolley
  • Azizi Bahauddin
  • Mohammad Javad Maghsoodi Tilaki


The purpose of this study was to develop and validate territorial functioning measures and to examine the link between territorial functioning and victimisation in a high-crime context. To this end, four sequential stages of scale development were undertaken: conceptual model development, item generation and content validation, exploratory study and confirmatory study. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the three dimensions of territorial functioning, namely, neighbourhood attitudes, sense of control and marking behaviour, as dimensions of the second-order territorial functioning construct. The results of the structural model support findings reported in the literature that associate high territorial functioning with low victimisation. The theoretical and practical implications of the study and directions for future research are discussed in the concluding sections of this study.


Confirmatory Factor Analysis Crime Prevention Physical Design Content Validation Index Defensible Space 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space; Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baran, P., Smith, W. R., & Toker, U. (2006). Conflict between space and crime: exploring the relationship between spatial configuration and crime location. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference of EDRA, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. Crime Prevention Studies, 2, 115–148.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, R. V. (1992). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies. Albany: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cozens, P., Hillier, D., & Prescott, G. (2001). Crime and the design of residential property- exploring the theoretical background- Part 1. Property Management, 19(2), 136–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feelei, M. M. (2004). Actuarial justice and the modern state. In G. Bruinsma, H. Elffers, & J. D. Keijser (Eds.), Punishment, places and perpetrators: Developments in criminology and criminal justice research (p. 62). Portland: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeffery, C. R. (1999). CPTED: past, present and future. Paper presented at the 4th Annual International CPTED Association Conference, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mawby, R. I. (2001). Burglary. Portland: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor, R. B., & Harrell, A. V. (1996). Physical environment and crime. Social Problems, 40(3), 374–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brower, S., Dockett, K., & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Residents’ perceptions of territorial features and perceived local threat. Environment and Behavior, 15(4), 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: an environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clontz, K. A. (1997). Spatial Analysis of Residential Burglaries in Tallahassee, Florida. Paper presented at the Annual Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1984). Block crime and fear: defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in crime and delinquency, 21(4), 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2011). Creating safe walkable streetscapes: does house design and upkeep discourage incivilities in suburban neighbourhoods? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunstan, F., Weaver, N., Araya, R., Bell, T., Lannon, S., Lewis, G., et al. (2005). An observation tool to assist with the assessment of urban residential environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taylor, R. B. (1988). Human territorial functioning: An empirical, evolutionary perspective on individual and small group territorial cognitions, behaviours and consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edney, J. J. (1972). Property, possession and permanence: a field study of human territoriality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2(3), 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1981). Territorial cognitions and social climate in urban neighborhoods. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2(4), 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollack, L. M., & Patterson, A. H. (1980). Territoriality and fear of crime in elderly and nonelderly homeowners. The Journal of Social Psychology, 111(First Half), 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hunter, R. D., & Jeffery, C. R. (1997). Preventing convenience store robbery through environmental design. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altman, I. (1975). Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2004). Incivilities, place attachment and crime: block and individual effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J. W., & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: implications for theory and measurement1. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12(1), 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brower, S. N. (1980). Territory in urban settings. In I. Altman, A. Rapoport, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Culture and environment. Human behavior and environment (Vol. 4, pp. 179–207). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenberg, S. W., Rohe, W. M., & William, J. R. (1982). Safety in urban neighborhood: a comparison of physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 5(3), 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Greenbaum, P. E., & Greenbaum, S. D. (1981). Territorial personalization: group identity and social interaction in a Slavic-American neighborhood. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 574–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Macdonald, J. E., & Gifford, R. (1989). Territorial cues and defensible space theory: the burglar’s point of view. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(3), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rainwater, L. (1966). Fear and house-as-haven in the house class. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Greenberg, S. W., & Rohe, W. M. (1984). Neighbourhood design and crime: a tale of two perspectives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(1), 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bottoms, A. E. (1974). Review of defensible space. British Journal of Criminology, 14(2), 203–206.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hillier, B. (1973). In defense of space. Royal Institute of British Architects Journal, 80(11), 539–544.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hillier, B., & Shu, S. (2000). Do burglars understand defensible space? New Evidence on the Relation Between Crime and Space.
  35. 35.
    Mawby, R. I. (1977). Defensible space: a theoretical and empirical appraisal. Urban Studies, 14(2), 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mayhew, P. (1979). Defensible space: the current status of a crime prevention theory. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 18(3), 150–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Merry, S. E. (1981). Defensible space undefended: social factors in crime control through environmental design. Urban Affairs Review, 16(4), 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilson, S. (1981). A new look at Newman. RIBA Journal, 50–51.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In R. V. G. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (Vol. 5, pp. 259–294). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilson, S. (1980). Vandalism and defensible space on London housing project. In R. V. G. Clarke & P. Mayhew (Eds.), Designing out crime (pp. 39–66). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Newman, O. (1976). Design guidelines for creating defensible space. Washington: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    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
  43. 43.
    Booth, A. (1981). The built environment as a crime deterrent. Criminology, 18(4), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Patterson, A. H. (1978). Territorial behavior and fear of crime in the elderly. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior, 2(3), 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Flatley, J., Kershaw, C., Smith, K., Chaplin, R., & Moon, D. (2010). Crime in England and Wales 2009/10. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kershaw, C., Nicholas, S., & Walker, A. (2008). Crime in England and Wales 2007/8: Findings from the British crime survey and police recorded crime. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Walker, A., Flatley, J., Kershaw, C., & Moon, D. (2009). Crime in England and Wales 2008/09. London: Home Office Statistical Bulletin.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Caughy, M. O., O’Campo, P. J., & Patterson, J. (2001). A brief observational measure for urban neighborhoods. Health & Place, 7(3), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cohen, D., Spear, S., Scribner, R., Kissinger, P., Mason, K., & Wildgen, J. (2000). “ Broken windows” and the risk of gonorrhea. American Journal of Public Health, 90(2), 230–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Craik, K. H., & Appleyard, D. (1980). Streets of San Francisco: Brunswick’s lens model applied to urban inference and assessment. Journal of Social Issues, 36(3), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hedayati Marzbali, M., Abdullah, A., Razak, N. A., & Maghsoodi, M. J. (2012). The effects of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) on Fear of Crime and Perception of Safety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hedayati Marzbali, M., Abdullah, A., Razak, N. A., & Maghsoodi, M. J. (2012). The relationship between socio-economic characteristics, victimization and CPTED principles: evidence from the MIMIC model. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(3), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Skjaeveland, O., & Garling, T. (1997). Effects of interactional space on neighbouring. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17(3), 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Baum, F. E., Zierscha, A. M., Zhangb, G., & Osborne, K. (2009). Do perceived neighbourhood cohesion and safety contribute to neighbourhood differences in health? Health and Place, 15(4), 925–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chandola, T. (2001). The fear of crime and area differences in health. Health and Place, 7(2), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to measurement theory. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGrew-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). United States: Pearson.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Di Eugenio, B., & Glass, M. (2004). The kappa statistic: a second look. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B, 36(2), 115–128.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Fassinger, R. E. (1987). Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Briggs, N. E. (2006). Estimation of the standard error and confidence interval of the indirect effect in multiple mediator models. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(1), 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lockwood, C. M., & MacKinnon, D. P. (1998). Bootstrapping the standard error of the mediated effect. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of SAS Users Group International, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods; Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Cheung, G. W. (2008). Testing equivalence in the structure, means, and variances of higher-order constructs with structural equation modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: a first-and second-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(3), 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tojib, D. R., Sugianto, L. F., & Sendjaya, S. (2008). User satisfaction with business-to-employee portals: conceptualization and scale development. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lin, H. F. (2007). Predicting consumer intentions to shop online: an empirical test of competing theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(4), 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Taylor, R. B., & Brower, S. N. (1985). Home and near-home territories. In I. Altman & C. Werner (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Current theory and research (Vol. 8, pp. 183–212). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Newman, O. (1996). Creating defensible space, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holiday decorations: the influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment and Behavior, 17(5), 539–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Moffatt, R. E. (1983). Crime prevention through environmental design-a management perspective. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 25(1), 19–31.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Ley, D., & Cybriwsky, R. (1974). Urban Graffiti as territorial markers. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 64(4), 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Scheflen, A. E. (1971). Living space in an urban ghetto. Family Process, 10(4), 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldrin Abdullah
    • 1
  • Massoomeh Hedayati Marzbali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helen Woolley
    • 2
  • Azizi Bahauddin
    • 1
  • Mohammad Javad Maghsoodi Tilaki
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Housing, Building & PlanningUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of LandscapeThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations