Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Guardianship and crime: an international comparative study of guardianship in action

  • Meghan E. Hollis-Peel
  • Danielle M. Reynald
  • Brandon C. Welsh
Article

Abstract

An observational tool was developed to measure guardianship potential and guardianship in action in residential areas in The Hague, the Netherlands by Reynald (Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11(1):1–20, 2009; Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(3):358–390, 2010). Guardianship potential was measured using the defensible space-based measures from the Block Environment Inventory (BEI), while Guardianship in Action (GIA) was observed by recording whether or not guardians (1) were visibly available, (2) were monitoring, and (3) intervened when necessary. This article reports on an international comparison of GIA in The Hague and in an American city. A comparative understanding will help advance knowledge on the measurement of active guardianship and related defensible space dimensions and identify socio-cultural differences in the application and meaning of the guardianship concept. Key results include that the observable dimensions of guardianship in action were reliable and valid, but some differences existed between the two sites including significant differences related to the social interaction measure. Similarities and differences across the two sites are examined, and implications for theory and research are explored.

Keywords

Street Segment Crime Prevention Routine Activity National Crime Victimization Survey Routine Activity Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the editor, the anonymous reviewers, and Henk Elffers for helpful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Armitage, R. (2000). An evaluation of Secured by design within west Yorkshire. Home Office Briefing Note 7/00. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armitage, R. (2007). Sustainability versus safety: Confusion, conflict and contradiction in designing out crime. In G. Farrell, K. J. Bowers, S. D. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime prevention: Essays in honour of Ken Pease. Crime prevention studies, vol. 21 (pp. 81–110). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armitage, R., Monchuk, L., & Rogerson, M. (2011). It looks good but what is it like to live there? Exploring the impact of innovative housing design on crime. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bennett, R. R. (1991). Routine activities: A cross-national assessment of a criminological perspective. Social Forces, 70(1), 147–163.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Booth, A. (1981). The built environment as a crime deterrent: A reexamination of defensible space. Criminology, 18, 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths, and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2002). Neighborhood revitalization and disorder: An intervention evaluation: Final project report. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Cozens, P., Hillier, D., & Prescott, G. (2001). Crime and the design of residential property: Exploring the theoretical background part 1. Property Management, 19(2), 136–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cozens, P., Saville, G., & Hillier, D. (2005). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): A review and modern bibliography. Property Management, 23(5), 328–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cozens, P. (2008). Crime prevention through environmental design. In R. Wortley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Devon: Willan.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1994). Crime place in crime theory. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place. Crime prevention studies (vol. 4). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ekblom, P. (2006). Crime prevention through environmental design - time for an upgrade? Paper presented at 17th annual conference on problem-oriented policing, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ekblom, P. (2007). Crime reduction through surveillance and design. Paper presented at international crime reduction conference, Banff, Canada, October 9–11, 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ekblom, P. (2011). Deconstructing CPTED… and reconstructing it for practice, knowledge, management and research. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place. Crime prevention studies, vol. 4 (1995th ed., pp. 53–66). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollis-Peel, M. E., Reynald, D. M., van Bavel, M., Elffers, H., & Welsh, B. C. (2011). Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jeffery, C. R. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mawby, R. I. (1977). Defensible space: A theoretical and empirical appraisal. Urban Studies, 14, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rengert, G. F., & Wasilchick, J. (1985). Suburban burglary: A tale of two cities. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reynald, D. M. (2010). Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 358–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reynald, D. M. (2011). Factors associated with the guardianship of places: Assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and socio-demographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 48(1), 110–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reynald, D. M. (2011). Translating CPTED into crime preventive action: A critical examination of CPTED as a tool for active guardianship. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(1), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. N. (1984). Block crime and fear: Defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., et al. (2004). Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States, and the Netherlands: A cross-national comparative test of routine activities and lifestyle theories. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Welsh, B. C., Mudge, M. E., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Reconceptualizing public area surveillance and crime prevention: Security guards, place managers, and defensible space. Security Journal, 23(4), 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghan E. Hollis-Peel
    • 1
    • 3
  • Danielle M. Reynald
    • 2
  • Brandon C. Welsh
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law EnforcementAmsterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.Griffith UniversityQueenslandAustralia
  3. 3.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations