Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 201–219 | Cite as

Space–Time Patterns of Risk: A Cross National Assessment of Residential Burglary Victimization

  • Shane D. Johnson
  • Wim Bernasco
  • Kate J. Bowers
  • Henk Elffers
  • Jerry Ratcliffe
  • George Rengert
  • Michael Townsley
Original Paper

Abstract

Using epidemiological techniques for testing disease contagion, it has recently been found that in the wake of a residential burglary, the risk to nearby homes is temporarily elevated. This paper demonstrates the ubiquity of this phenomenon by analyzing space–time patterns of burglary in 10 areas, located in five different countries. While the precise patterns vary, for all areas, houses within 200 m of a burgled home were at an elevated risk of burglary for a period of at least two weeks. For three of the five countries, differences in these patterns may partly be explained by simple differences in target density. The findings inform theories of crime concentration and offender targeting strategies, and have implications for crime forecasting and crime reduction more generally.

Keywords

Burglary risk Space–time clustering Cross national comparison Monte-Carlo simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a British Academy International Collaborative Network grant, and additional funding from UCL Futures, NSCR and the Research Incentive Fund at Temple University. Thanks go to the following police forces for providing the data here analyzed: Australian Federal Police (ACT policing), Beenleigh police division (Australia), Dorset police force (UK), Florida police department (USA), Haaglanden police force (Netherlands), New Zealand police force, Merseyside police (UK), and Philadelphia police department (USA). We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper.

References

  1. Bernasco W, Luykx F (2003) Effects of attractiveness, opportunity and accessibility to burglars on residential burglary rates of urban neighborhoods. Criminology 41:981–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernasco W, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) How do residential burglars select target areas? Brit J Criminol 45:295–315Google Scholar
  3. Besag J, Diggle P (1977) Simple Monte Carlo tests for spatial pattern. App Stat 26:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blau J, Blau P (1982) The cost of inequality: metropolitan structure and violent crime. Am Soc Rev 47:114–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block CR (1995) STAC hot-spot areas: a statistical tool for law enforcement decisions. In: Block CR, Dabdoub M, Fregly S (eds) Crime analysis through computer mapping. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, pp 15–32Google Scholar
  6. Block RL, Block CR (1995) Space, place and crime: hot spot areas and hot places of liquor-related crime. In: Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place: crime prevention studies, vol 4. Criminal Justice Press, Washington, DC, pp 145–183Google Scholar
  7. Block CR, Dabdoub M, Fregly S (1995) Crime analysis through computer mapping. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher C (1986) Criminal careers and career criminals, 2 vols. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD (2005) Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters: the dimensions of risk. Euro J Criminol 2:67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD, Pease K (2004) Prospective hot-spotting: the future of crime mapping? Brit J Criminol 44:641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1993) Environment, routine, and situation: toward a pattern theory of crime. In: Clarke RV, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp 259–294Google Scholar
  12. Budd T (1999) Burglary of domestic dwellings: findings from the British crime survey. Home Office, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 4/99. LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Bursik R, Grasmick H (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne J, Sampson R (1986) The social ecology of crime. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen L, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Soc Rev 44:588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornish D (1994) The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational crime prevention. In: Clarke R (ed) Crime prevention studies, vol 3. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York, pp 151–196Google Scholar
  17. Cornish D (1993) Theories of action in criminology: learning theory and rational choice approaches. In: Clarke R, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice: advances in criminological theory. Transaction Publications, vol 5, pp 351–382Google Scholar
  18. Cornish D, Clarke R (1986) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Cromwell P, Olson J, Avary D (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Deane G, Armstrong DP, Felson RB (2005) An examination of offense specialization using marginal logit models. Criminology 43:955–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eck J (1995) A general model of the geography of illicit retail marketplaces. In: Weisburd D, Eck JE (eds) Crime and place, vol 4. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York, pp 67–93Google Scholar
  22. Ericsson U (1995) Straight from the horse’s mouth. Forensic Update 43:23–25Google Scholar
  23. Everson S (2003) Repeat victimisation and prolific offending: chance or choice? Int J Pol Sci Manag 5:180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrell G (2005) Progress and prospects in the prevention of repeat victimization. In: Tilley N (ed) Handbook of crime prevention and community safety. Willan, Cullompton, pp 145–172Google Scholar
  25. Farrell G (1995) Preventing repeat victimisation. In: Tonry M, Farrington DP (eds) Building a safer society. Crime and Justice 19. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 469–534Google Scholar
  26. Farrell G, Pease K (1993) Once bitten, twice bitten: repeat victimization and its implications for crime prevention. Home Office: Police Research Group, Crime Prevention Unit Series, Paper 46Google Scholar
  27. Fattah E (1993) The rational choice/opportunity perspectives as a vehicle for integrating criminological and victimological theories. In: Clarke R, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice. Transaction Publications, 5:225–258Google Scholar
  28. Felson M (1998) Crime and everyday life: impact and implications for society, 2nd edn. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  29. Felson M, Poulson E (2003) Simple indicators of crime by time of day. Int J Forecasting 19:595–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forrester D, Chatterton M, Pease K (1988) The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, Rochdale. Crime prevention unit paper 13. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Griffith E, Chavez JM (2004) Communities, street guns and homicide trajectories in chicago, 1980–1995: merging methods for examining homicide trends across space and time. Criminology 42:941–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guerry A (1831) Essai Sur la Statistique Morale de la France. Chez Corchard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawley AH (1950) Human ecology: a theory of community structure. Ronald, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Hays WL (1981) Statistics, 3rd edn. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Hesseling RBP (1994) Displacement: a review of the empirical literature In: Clarke RV (ed) Crime prevention studies, vol 3. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 197–230Google Scholar
  36. Jacquez GM (1996) A k-nearest neighbor test for space-time interaction. Statistics in Medicine 15:1935–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2004) The burglary as clue to the future: the beginnings of prospective hot-spotting. Euro J Criminol 1:237–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson SD, Bowers K, Hirschfield A (1997) New insights in the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimisation. Brit J Criminol 37:224–241Google Scholar
  39. Knox G (1964) Epidemiology of childhood leukaemia in northumberland and durham. Brit J Prev Social Med 18:17–24Google Scholar
  40. Lauritsen JL (2001) The social ecology of violent victimization: individual and contextual effects in the ncvs. J Quant Criminol 17:3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lersch K (2004) Space, time, and crime. Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NCGoogle Scholar
  42. Maguire M (1982) Burglary in a dwelling. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Morgan F (2000) Repeat burglary in a perth suburb: indicator of short-term or long term risk. In: Farrell G, Pease K (eds) Repeat victimization: crime prevention studies 12. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, New York, pp 83–118Google Scholar
  44. Morrill RL (1965) The Negro Ghetto: problems and alternatives. Geog Rev 55:339–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. North BV, Curtis D, Sham PC (2002) A note on the calculation of empirical p values from monte carlo procedures. Am J Hum Gen 71:439–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pease K (1998) Repeat victimization: taking stock. The Home Office: Police Research Group: Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 90Google Scholar
  47. Polvi N, Looman T, Humphries C, Pease K (1991) The time course of repeat burglary victimisation, Brit J Criminol 31:411–414Google Scholar
  48. Ratcliffe JH (2006) A temporal constraint theory to explain opportunity-based spatial offending patterns, J Res in Crime Del 43(3):261–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ratcliffe JH (2004a) Crime mapping and the training needs of law enforcement. Euro J Crim Pol Res 10:65–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ratcliffe JH (2004b) The hotspot matrix: a framework for the spatio-temporal targeting of crime reduction. Pol Prac Res 5:5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ratcliffe JH (2002) Aoristic signatures and the temporal analysis of high volume crime patterns. J Quant Criminol 18:23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ratcliffe JH, McCullagh M (1998) The perception of crime hot spots: a spatial study in Nottingham, U. K. In: LaVigne N, Wartell J (eds) Crime mapping case studies: successes in the field. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, pp 45–51Google Scholar
  53. Ratcliffe J, McCullagh M (1999) Burglary, victimisation, and social deprivation. Crime Prev Comm Safety An Int J 1/2:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ratcliffe J, Rengert G (2007) Near repeat patterns in Philadelphia shootings. Sec J (in press)Google Scholar
  55. Rengert G (1989) Spatial justice and criminal victimization. Just Quart 6:543–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rengert G, Piquero A, Jones P (1999) Distance decay reexamined. Criminology 37:601–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rengert G, Wasilchick J (2000) Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs. Charles Thomas, Springfield, ILGoogle Scholar
  58. Robinson J (2003) The drug free zones, the police, locations, and trends of drug sales in Portland, Oregon, 1990–1998. A dissertation submitted to the Temple University Graduate Board, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  59. Rossmo DK (2000) Geographic profiling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  60. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shaw C, McKay H (1969) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  62. Shaw M, Pease K (2000) Research on repeat victimisation in Scotland: final report. Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive Central Research UnitGoogle Scholar
  63. Sherman L, Gartin P, Buerger M (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place, Criminology 27:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Summers L, Johnson SD, Pease K (2007) El Robo de (Objetos en) Vehículos y su Contagio a través del Espacio y el Tiempo: Aplicaciones de técnicas epidemiológicas. Revista Electronica de Investigacion Criminologica (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  65. Townsley M, Homel R, Chaseling J (2003) Infectious burglaries: a test of the near repeat hypothesis. Brit J Criminol 43:615–633Google Scholar
  66. Townsley, M., Johnson, SD, Ratcliffe J (2007) Space-time dynamics of insurgent activity in Iraq. Sec J (in press)Google Scholar
  67. Tufte ER (2001) The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, CheshireGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiles P, Costello A (2000) The ‘road to nowhere’: the evidence for travelling criminals. Home Office Research Study 207. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Zipf GK (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shane D. Johnson
    • 1
  • Wim Bernasco
    • 2
  • Kate J. Bowers
    • 1
  • Henk Elffers
    • 2
  • Jerry Ratcliffe
    • 3
  • George Rengert
    • 3
  • Michael Townsley
    • 1
  1. 1.UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)LeidenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Temple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations