Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Target Selection Models with Preference Variation Between Offenders

Abstract

Objectives

This study explores preference variation in location choice strategies of residential burglars. Applying a model of offender target selection that is grounded in assertions of the routine activity approach, rational choice perspective, crime pattern and social disorganization theories, it seeks to address the as yet untested assumption that crime location choice preferences are the same for all offenders.

Methods

Analyzing detected residential burglaries from Brisbane, Australia, we apply a random effects variant of the discrete spatial choice model to estimate preference variation between offenders across six location choice characteristics. Furthermore, in attempting to understand the causes of this variation we estimate how offenders’ spatial target preferences might be affected by where they live and by their age.

Results

Findings of this analysis demonstrate that while in the aggregate the characteristics of location choice are consistent with the findings from previous studies, considerable preference variation is found between offenders.

Conclusions

This research highlights that current understanding of choice outcomes is relatively poor and that existing applications of the discrete spatial choice approach may underestimate preference variation between offenders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The terminology used here is different to that used in other fields. Economists are interested in how taste varies among decision makers, and what individual characteristics are associated with, and therefore can predict, taste. For our purposes, the term preference is considered more germane to the variable of interest.

  2. 2.

    Instead of the well known Red Bus/Blue Bus example often used to highlight the restrictive property of the IIA assumption, we present an alternative example better suited to spatial choices, where adjacent areas often have similar characteristics and their boundaries may be somewhat arbitrary. Suppose offenders can choose from a choice set of two target areas: A and B. If both are equally preferred, the probability of choosing each is .5 and the odds ratio is 1. Say area B is divided, for administrative reasons unrelated to crime, into B-North and B-South. Assuming offenders do not know or care about areal names, the preference between A and B should remain equal, with A at .5 and .25 for both B-North and B-South. But the IIA property states that the odds ratio of A and B is fixed at one, so the probabilities need to change to .33 A, .33 B-North and .33 B-South.

  3. 3.

    In addition to the results reported later in this paper, we estimated a series of models on subsets of the sample. Removing low rate and prolific offenders did not yield different estimates.

  4. 4.

    A closed form solution is any formula that can be computed in a finite number of steps. Integral functions often require an infinite number of steps to compute, because they represent the area under a curve. The accuracy of the estimate is related to the number of the estimation points used. More accurate estimates can be obtained by using more points, but there is no upper limit on how many points could be used. In practical terms, calculating an integral function is performed through approximation.

  5. 5.

    Simulated probabilities involve Monte Carlo integration, which requires drawing a series of values from an uniform distribution on a unit interval. Halton sequences are a popular method of drawing and are considered superior to random draws because they provide better coverage of the sampling space.

References

  1. Ackerman JM, Rossmo DK (2015) How far to travel? A multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance. J Quant Criminol 31(2):237–262. doi:10.1007/s10940-014-9232-7

  2. Andresen MA, Frank R, Felson M (2014) Age and the distance to crime. Criminol Crim Justice 14(3):314–333

  3. Baldwin J, Bottoms AE (1976) The urban criminal. Tavistock, London

  4. Baudains P, Braithwiate A, Johnson SD (2013) Target choice during extreme events: a discrete spatial choice model of the 2011 London riots. Criminology 51(2):251–285

  5. Beavon DJK, Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1994) The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. In: Clarke RVG (ed) Crime prevention studies. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, pp 115–148

  6. Bennett T, Wright R (1984) Burglars on burglary: prevention and the offender. Gower, Aldershot

  7. Bernasco W (2006) Co-offending and the choice of target areas in burglary. J Invest Psychol Offender Profiling 3(3):139–155

  8. Bernasco W (2010a) Modeling micro-level crime location choice: application of the discrete choice framework to crime at places. J Quant Criminol 26(1):113–138

  9. Bernasco W (2010b) A sentimental journey to crime: effects of residential history on crime location choice. Criminology 48(2):389–416

  10. Bernasco W, Block RL (2009) Where offenders choose to attack: a discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology 47(1):93–130

  11. Bernasco W, Kooistra T (2010) Effects of residential history on commercial robbers crime location choices. Eur J Criminol 7(4):251–265

  12. Bernasco W, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. Br J Criminol 45(3):296–315

  13. Bernasco W, Block RL, Ruiter S (2013) Go where the money is: modeling street robbers location choices. J Econ Geogr 13(1):119–143

  14. Bhat CR (2003) Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp Res Part B 37(9):837–855

  15. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (2003) Anticipating the displacement of crime using the principles of environmental criminology. In: Smith MJ, Cornish DB (eds) Theory for practice in situational crime prevention, vol 16. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY, pp 119–148

  16. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (2008) Crime pattern theory. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp 78–93

  17. Brunsdon C, Stewart Fotheringham A, Charlton ME (1996) Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr Anal 28(4):281–298

  18. Bulmer MG (2012) Principles of statistics. Courier Dover Publications, New York

  19. Clare J, Fernandez J, Morgan F (2009) Formal evaluation of the impact of barriers and connectors on residential burglars’ macro-level offending location choices. Aust N Z J Criminol 42(2):139–158

  20. Cohen LE, Cantor D (1981) Residential burglary in the united states: life-style and demographic factors associated with the probability of victimization. J Res Crime Delinq 18(1):113–127

  21. Cornish DB, Clarke RVG (1986) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York

  22. Cornish DB, Clarke RVG (2008) The rational choice perspective. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp 21–47

  23. Cromwell PF, Olson JN, Avary DW (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

  24. Dumont J, Keller J, Carpenter C (2013) RSGHB: functions for hierarchical bayesian estimation: a flexible approach. R package version 1.0.1, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RSGHB

  25. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2003) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK

  26. Frischknecht BD, Eckert C, Geweke J, Louviere JJ (2013) Incorporating prior information to overcome complete separation problems in discrete choice model estimation. Working paper downloaded from https://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/business/centres/i4c/docs/papers/wp11-007.pdf

  27. Gelfand AE, Smith AFM (1990) Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J Am Stat Assoc 85(410):398–409

  28. Ghosh B (1951) Random distances within a rectangle and between two rectangles. Bull Calcutta Math Soc 43(1):17–24

  29. Goldstein H (1995) Hierarchical data modeling in the social sciences. J Educ Behav Stat 20(2):201–204

  30. Groff ER, McEwen T (2006) Exploring the spatial configuration of places related to homicide events. Final report. National Institute of Justice, Washington

  31. Guevara CA, Ben-Akiva M (2013) Sampling of alternatives in multivariate extreme value (MEV) models. Transp Res Part B 48:31–52

  32. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2):133–176

  33. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2004) The stability of space-time clusters of burglary. Br J Criminol 44(1):55–65

  34. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2010) Permeability and crime risk: are cul-de-sacs safer? J Quant Criminol 26(1):89–111

  35. Johnson SD, Summers L (2015) Testing ecological theories of offender spatial decision making using a discrete choice model. Crime Delinq 61(3):454–480. doi:10.1177/0011128714540276

  36. Levine N, Lee P (2013) Journey-to-crime by gender and age group in Manchester, England. In: Leitner M (ed) Crime modeling and mapping using geospatial technologies. Geotechnologies and the Environment, vol 8, chap 7. Springer, Dordrecht, NL, pp 145–178

  37. McFadden DL (1978) Modeling the choice of residential location. In: Karlqvist A, Lundqvist L, Snickars F, Weibull J (eds) Spatial interaction theory and planning models. Amsterdam, North Holland, pp 75–96

  38. McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ, Piquero AR (2009) Aggregating to versatility? Transitions among offender types in the short term. Br J Criminol 49(2):243–264

  39. Nee C, Meenaghan A (2006) Expert decision making in burglars. Br J Criminol 46(5):935–949

  40. Phillips PD, Georges-Abeyie DE, Harries KD (1980) Crime: a spatial perspective. Columbia University Press, New York

  41. Ratcliffe JH (2006) A temporal constraint theory to explain opportunity-based spatial offending patterns. J Res Crime Delinq 43(3):261–291

  42. Rengert GF, Wasilchick J (1990) Space, time and crime: ethnographic insights into residential burglary. Unpublished Report to the National Institute of Justice. Temple University, Philadelphia

  43. Rengert GF, Wasilchick J (2000) Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs, 2nd edn. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield

  44. Rengert GF, Piquero AR, Jones PR (1999) Distance decay reexamined. Criminology 37(2):427–445

  45. Repetto T (1974) Residential crime. Ballinger, Cambridge

  46. Rossmo DK (2000) Geographic profiling. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton

  47. Sampson RJ (1991) Linking the micro-and macrolevel dimensions of community social organization. Soc Forces 70(1):43–64

  48. Sampson RJ, Wooldredge JD (1987) Linking the micro-and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. J Quant Criminol 3(4):371–393

  49. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277(5328):918

  50. Shaw CR, McKay HD (1969) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: a study of rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  51. Smith DA, Jarjoura GR (1989) Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk. Soc Forces 68(2):621–640

  52. Smith WR, Bond JW, Townsley M (2009) Determining how journeys-to-crime vary: measuring inter- and intra-offender crime trip distributions. In: Weisburd DL, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in geographic criminology. Springer, New York

  53. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage, London

  54. Snook B (2004) Individual differences in distance travelled by serial burglars. J Invest Psychol Offender Profiling 1(1):53–66

  55. Summers L, Johnson SD, Rengert GF (2010) The use of maps in offender interviewing. In: Bernasco W (ed) Offenders on offending: learning about crime from criminals. Cullompton, Willan

  56. Townsley M, Sidebottom A (2010) All offenders are equal, but some are more equal than others: variation in journeys to crime between offenders. Criminology 48(3):210–222

  57. Townsley M, Birks DJ, Bernasco W, Ruiter S, Johnson SD, Baum S, White G (2015) Burglar target selection: a cross-national comparison. J Res Crime Delinq 52(1):3–31. doi:10.1177/0022427814541447

  58. Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  59. Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D (2002) Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther 27(4):299–309

  60. Weisburd DL, Groff ER, Yang S-M (2012) The criminology of place: street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

  61. Weisel DL (2002) Burglary of single-family houses. Problem-oriented guides for police 18. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Washington

  62. Wikström P-OH, Oberwittler D, Treiber K, Hardie B (2012) Breaking rules: the social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

  63. Wiles P, Costello A (2000) The road to nowhere: the evidence for travelling criminals. Research study 207. Home Office, London

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Michael Townsley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Townsley, M., Birks, D., Ruiter, S. et al. Target Selection Models with Preference Variation Between Offenders. J Quant Criminol 32, 283–304 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9264-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Offender mobility
  • Residential burglary
  • Discrete spatial choice
  • Mixed logit