Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 283–304 | Cite as

Target Selection Models with Preference Variation Between Offenders

  • Michael Townsley
  • Daniel Birks
  • Stijn Ruiter
  • Wim Bernasco
  • Gentry White
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Offender mobility Residential burglary Discrete spatial choice Mixed logit 

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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen MA, Frank R, Felson M (2014) Age and the distance to crime. Criminol Crim Justice 14(3):314–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin J, Bottoms AE (1976) The urban criminal. Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
  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):251–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 115–148Google Scholar
  6. Bennett T, Wright R (1984) Burglars on burglary: prevention and the offender. Gower, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernasco W (2006) Co-offending and the choice of target areas in burglary. J Invest Psychol Offender Profiling 3(3):139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):113–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernasco W (2010b) A sentimental journey to crime: effects of residential history on crime location choice. Criminology 48(2):389–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernasco W, Block RL (2009) Where offenders choose to attack: a discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology 47(1):93–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernasco W, Kooistra T (2010) Effects of residential history on commercial robbers crime location choices. Eur J Criminol 7(4):251–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):296–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bernasco W, Block RL, Ruiter S (2013) Go where the money is: modeling street robbers location choices. J Econ Geogr 13(1):119–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhat CR (2003) Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp Res Part B 37(9):837–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 119–148Google Scholar
  16. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (2008) Crime pattern theory. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp 78–93Google Scholar
  17. Brunsdon C, Stewart Fotheringham A, Charlton ME (1996) Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr Anal 28(4):281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bulmer MG (2012) Principles of statistics. Courier Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  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):139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cornish DB, Clarke RVG (1986) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 21–47Google Scholar
  23. Cromwell PF, Olson JN, Avary DW (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  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, UKGoogle Scholar
  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):398–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghosh B (1951) Random distances within a rectangle and between two rectangles. Bull Calcutta Math Soc 43(1):17–24Google Scholar
  29. Goldstein H (1995) Hierarchical data modeling in the social sciences. J Educ Behav Stat 20(2):201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Groff ER, McEwen T (2006) Exploring the spatial configuration of places related to homicide events. Final report. National Institute of Justice, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Guevara CA, Ben-Akiva M (2013) Sampling of alternatives in multivariate extreme value (MEV) models. Transp Res Part B 48:31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hensher DA, Greene WH (2003) The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation 30(2):133–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2004) The stability of space-time clusters of burglary. Br J Criminol 44(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2010) Permeability and crime risk: are cul-de-sacs safer? J Quant Criminol 26(1):89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 145–178Google Scholar
  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 75–96Google Scholar
  38. McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ, Piquero AR (2009) Aggregating to versatility? Transitions among offender types in the short term. Br J Criminol 49(2):243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nee C, Meenaghan A (2006) Expert decision making in burglars. Br J Criminol 46(5):935–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Phillips PD, Georges-Abeyie DE, Harries KD (1980) Crime: a spatial perspective. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Ratcliffe JH (2006) A temporal constraint theory to explain opportunity-based spatial offending patterns. J Res Crime Delinq 43(3):261–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  43. Rengert GF, Wasilchick J (2000) Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs, 2nd edn. Charles C. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  44. Rengert GF, Piquero AR, Jones PR (1999) Distance decay reexamined. Criminology 37(2):427–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Repetto T (1974) Residential crime. Ballinger, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Rossmo DK (2000) Geographic profiling. CRC Press LLC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  47. Sampson RJ (1991) Linking the micro-and macrolevel dimensions of community social organization. Soc Forces 70(1):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):371–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277(5328):918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  51. Smith DA, Jarjoura GR (1989) Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk. Soc Forces 68(2):621–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Snook B (2004) Individual differences in distance travelled by serial burglars. J Invest Psychol Offender Profiling 1(1):53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, WillanGoogle Scholar
  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):210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  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, UKGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiles P, Costello A (2000) The road to nowhere: the evidence for travelling criminals. Research study 207. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Townsley
    • 1
  • Daniel Birks
    • 1
  • Stijn Ruiter
    • 2
    • 3
  • Wim Bernasco
    • 2
    • 4
  • Gentry White
    • 5
  1. 1.Griffith Criminology InstituteGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Spatial EconomicsVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Science and Engineering FacultyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations