European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 373–392 | Cite as

Predicting Property Crime Risk: an Application of Risk Terrain Modeling in Vancouver, Canada

  • Martin A. AndresenEmail author
  • Tarah Hodgkinson


Research on the spatial dimension of crime has developed significantly over the past few decades. An important aspect of this research is the visualization of this dimension and its underlying risk across space. However, most methods of such visualization, and subsequent analyses, only consider crime data or, perhaps, a population at risk in a crime rate. Risk terrain modeling (RTM) provides an alternative to such methods and can incorporate the entire environmental backcloth, data permitting. To date, the RTM literature has dominantly focused on violent crime in the United States. In this paper, we apply RTM to property crime victimization (residential burglary) in Vancouver, Canada. We are able to show that not only does RTM have applicability in a Canadian context but provides insight into nonviolent victimization.


Risk terrain modeling Residential burglary Canada 


  1. Andresen, M. A. (2006). A spatial analysis of crime in Vancouver, British Columbia: a synthesis of social disorganization and routine activity theory. Canadian Geographer, 50(4), 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen, M. A. (2011a). Estimating the probability of local crime clusters: the impact of immediate spatial neighbors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(5), 394–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen, M. A. (2011b). The ambient population and crime analysis. The Professional Geographer, 63(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andresen, M. A. (2014). Environmental criminology: Evolution, theory, and practice. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andresen, M. A., & Linning, S. J. (2012). The (in)appropriateness of aggregating across crime types. Applied Geography, 35(1–2), 275–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andresen, M. A., Frank, R., & Felson, M. (2014). Age and the distance to crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 14(3), 314–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andresen, M. A., Linning, S. J., & Malleson, N. (2017). Crime at places and spatial concentrations: Exploring the spatial stability of property crime in Vancouver BC, 2003-2013. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(2), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Armitage, R. (2013). Crime prevention through housing design: Policy and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Armitage, R., & Joyce, C. (2016). “Why my house?”–Exploring the influence of residential housing design on burglar decision making. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Barnes, T., & Sutton, T. (2009). Situating the new economy: contingencies of regeneration and dislocation in Vancouver’s inner city. Urban Studies, 46(5–6), 1247–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barnum, J. D., Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Piza, E. L. (2017). The crime kaleidoscope: a cross-jurisdictional analysis of place features and crime in three urban environments. Applied Geography, 79, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bennett, N. (2008). SkyTrain crime anticipated. The Vancouver Sun, 15 January 2008, p. B2.Google Scholar
  13. Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on burglary. Brookfield: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Bernasco, W. (2006). Co-offending and the choice of target areas in burglary. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 3(3), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bernasco, W., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. British Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Braga, A. A., & Clarke, R. V. (2014). Explaining high-risk concentrations of crime in the city. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(4), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1981). Notes on the geometry of crime. In P. J. Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 27–54). Waveland Press: Prospect Heights IL.Google Scholar
  18. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice, volume 5 (pp. 259–294). New Brunswick: Transaction publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1995). The criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Caplan, J. M., & Kennedy, L. W. (2013). Risk terrain modeling diagnostics utility (version 1.0). Newark: Rutgers Center on Public Security.Google Scholar
  21. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Miller, J. (2011). Risk terrain modeling: Brokering criminological theory and GIS methods for crime forecasting. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 360–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Caplan, J. M., Kennedy, L. W., & Piza, E. L. (2013). Joint utility of event-dependent and environmental crime analysis techniques for violent crime forecasting. Crime & Delinquency, 59(2), 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clare, J., Fernandez, J., & Morgan, F. (2009). Formal evaluation of the impact of barriers and connectors on residential burglars’ macro-level offending location choices. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clarke, R. V., & Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modeling offenders’ decisions: a framework for research and policy. Crime and Justice, 6, 147–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cozens, P., & Love, T. (2015). A review and current status of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 393–412.Google Scholar
  27. Cozens, P.M., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): a review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356.Google Scholar
  28. Cromwell, P. F., Olson, J. N., & Avary, D. W. (1991). Breaking and entering: An ethnographic analysis of burglary. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Crowe, T.D. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design (2nd edition). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  30. Curman, A. S. N., Andresen, M. A., & Brantingham, P. J. (2015). Crime and place: a longitudinal examination of street segment patterns in Vancouver, BC. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davies, G. (2006). Crime, neighborhood, and public housing. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  32. Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimization and its implications for crime prevention. London: Police Research Group, Home Office.Google Scholar
  33. Farrell, G., Phillips, C., & Pease, K. (1995). Like taking candy: why does repeat victimization occur? British Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 384–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., Mailley, J., & Tilley, N. (2011). The crime drop and the security hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Felson, M., & Eckert, M. (2016). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Forrester, D., Chatterton, M., & Pease, K. (1988). The Kirkholt burglary prevention project, Rochdale. Home Office Crime Prevention Unit, Paper 13. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  37. Fotheringham, A. S., & Wong, D. W. S. (1991). The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A, 23(7), 1025–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gallison, J. K., & Andresen, M. A. (2017). Crime and public transportation: a case study of Ottawa’s O-Train system. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 59(1), 94–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Groff, E. R., & La Vigne, N. G. (2001). Mapping an opportunity surface of residential burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Groff, E. R., Weisburd, D., & Yang, S.-M. (2010). Is it important to examine crime trends at a local “micro” level? A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(1), 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89(3), 552–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004). The burglary as clue to the future: the beginnings of prospective hot-spotting. European Journal of Criminology, 1(2), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson, S. D., Bernasco, W., Bowers, K. J., Elffers, H., Ratcliffe, J., Rengert, G., & Townsley, M. (2007). Space-time patterns of risk: a cross national assessment of residential burglary victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(3), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnson, S. D., Summers, L., & Pease, K. (2009). Offender as forager? A direct test of the boost account of victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(2), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kennedy, L. W., & Forde, D. R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology, 28(1), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kennedy, L. W., Caplan, J. M., & Piza, E. (2011). Risk clusters, hotspots, and spatial intelligence: Risk terrain modeling as an algorithm for police resource allocation strategies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(3), 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kennedy, L. W., Caplan, J. M., Piza, E. L., & Buccine-Schraeder. (2016). Vulnerability and exposure to crime: applying risk terrain modeling to the study of assault in Chicago. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 9(4), 529–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kinney, J. B., Brantingham, P. L., Wuschke, K., Kirk, M. G., & Brantingham, P. J. (2008). Crime attractors, generators and detractors: land use and urban crime opportunities. Built Environment, 34(1), 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kleemans, E. R. (2001). Repeat burglary victimization: Results of empirical research in the Netherlands. In G. Farrell & K. Pease (Eds.), Repeat victimization (pp. 53–68). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ley, D. (1999). Myths and meanings of immigration and the metropolis. Canadian Geographer, 43(1), 2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ley, D., & Smith, H. (2000). Relations between deprivation and immigrant groups in large Canadian cities. Urban Studies, 37(1), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Liggett, R., & Iseki, H. (2002). The geography of transit crime: documentation and evaluation of crime incidence on and around the green line stations in Los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lowenkamp, C. T., Cullen, F. T., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Replicating Sampson and Groves's test of social disorganization theory: revisiting a criminological classic. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. MacDonald, J. M., Hipp, J. R., & Gill, C. (2013). The effects of immigrant concentration on changes in neighborhood crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mawby, R. I. (2001). Burglary. Portland: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Moreto, W. D., Piza, E. L., & Caplan, J. M. (2014). “A plague on both your houses?”: risks, repeats and reconsiderations of urban residential burglary. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1102–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Openshaw, S. (1984a). Ecological fallacies and the analysis of areal census data. Environment and Planning A, 16(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Openshaw, S. (1984b). The modifiable areal unit problem. CATMOG (concepts and techniques in modern geography) 38. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar
  59. Rengert, G. F., & Wasilchick, J. (1985). Suburban burglary: A time and a place for everything. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  60. Reynald, D. M. (2011). Factors associated with the guardianship of places: assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and sociodemographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 110–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357.Google Scholar
  62. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schnell, C., Braga, A. A., & Piza, E. L. (2017). The influence of community areas, neighborhood clusters, and street segments on the spatial variability of violent crime in Chicago. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(3), 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sedelmaier, C. M. (2014). Offender-target redistribution on a new public transport system. Security Journal, 27(S2), 164–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1931). Social factors in juvenile delinquency. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  66. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study of rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Shaw, C. R., Zorbaugh, F., McKay, H. D., & Cottrell, L. S. (1929). Delinquency areas: A study of the geographic distribution of school truants, juvenile delinquents, and adult offenders in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stansfield, R., Akins, S., Rumbaut, R. G., & Hammer, R. B. (2013). Assessing the effects of recent immigration on serious property crime in Austin, Texas. Sociological Perspectives, 56(4), 647–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Steenbeek, W., & Weisburd, D. (2016). Where the action is in crime? An examination of variability of crime across different spatial units in the Hague, 2001–2009. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(3), 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infectious burglaries: a test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Waller, I. (1979). Men released from prison. Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  73. Waller, I. (2010). Rights for victims of crime: Rebalancing justice. Chicago: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  74. Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weisburd, D., & Amram, S. (2014). The law of concentrations of crime at place: the case of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Police Practice and Research, 15(2), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S.-M. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the City of Seattle. Criminology, 42(2), 283–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C. & Gajewski, F. (2006). Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology, 44(3), 549–591.Google Scholar
  78. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.Google Scholar
  79. Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1994). Burglars on the job. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Institute for Canadian Urban Research StudiesSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations