Target Selection Models with Preference Variation Between Offenders
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsOffender mobility Residential burglary Discrete spatial choice Mixed logit
- Baldwin J, Bottoms AE (1976) The urban criminal. Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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 115–148Google Scholar
- Bennett T, Wright R (1984) Burglars on burglary: prevention and the offender. Gower, AldershotGoogle Scholar
- 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 119–148Google Scholar
- Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (2008) Crime pattern theory. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp 78–93Google Scholar
- Bulmer MG (2012) Principles of statistics. Courier Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Cornish DB, Clarke RVG (2008) The rational choice perspective. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp 21–47Google Scholar
- Cromwell PF, Olson JN, Avary DW (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2003) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Ghosh B (1951) Random distances within a rectangle and between two rectangles. Bull Calcutta Math Soc 43(1):17–24Google Scholar
- Groff ER, McEwen T (2006) Exploring the spatial configuration of places related to homicide events. Final report. National Institute of Justice, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 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 145–178Google Scholar
- 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 75–96Google Scholar
- Phillips PD, Georges-Abeyie DE, Harries KD (1980) Crime: a spatial perspective. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Rengert GF, Wasilchick J (1990) Space, time and crime: ethnographic insights into residential burglary. Unpublished Report to the National Institute of Justice. Temple University, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- Rengert GF, Wasilchick J (2000) Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs, 2nd edn. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
- Repetto T (1974) Residential crime. Ballinger, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Rossmo DK (2000) Geographic profiling. CRC Press LLC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 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, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
- Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 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, WillanGoogle Scholar
- Weisel DL (2002) Burglary of single-family houses. Problem-oriented guides for police 18. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 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, UKGoogle Scholar
- Wiles P, Costello A (2000) The road to nowhere: the evidence for travelling criminals. Research study 207. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar