Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 89–111 | Cite as

Permeability and Burglary Risk: Are Cul-de-Sacs Safer?

  • Shane D. JohnsonEmail author
  • Kate J. Bowers
Original Paper

Abstract

That crime is concentrated in space is now accepted as commonplace. Explanations for why it clusters at particular locations are various reflecting the range of factors which are held to influence crime placement. In this article, we focus on the role of the permeability of the street network on the location of crime. We first review the research conducted hitherto, summarising the different approaches to analysis and the findings that have so far emerged. Then we present original analyses conducted at the street segment level to examine the issues at hand. In contrast to much of the prior research, in this study we examine the patterns for a large study area in which there is considerable variation in street network configuration. Moreover, and in contrast to all of the previous research, the approach to analysis takes into account the multi-level structure of the data analysed. The findings demonstrate that increased permeability is associated with elevated burglary risk, that burglary risk is lower on cul-de-sacs (particularly those that are sinuous in nature), and that the risk of burglary is higher on more major roads and those street segments that are connected to them. In the conclusion of the paper we outline an agenda for future research.

Keywords

Crime risk Permeability Cul-de-sacs Street segments 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Merseyside police for providing the recorded crime data analysed, and Ken Pease for comments on an earlier version of the paper. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers, Anthony Braga, David Weisburd, and the participants of a crime and place workshop hosted at George Mason University for their helpful comments. This work was supported by the British Home Office Design and Technology Alliance Against Crime.

References

  1. Armitage R (2007) Sustainability versus safety; confusion, conflict and contradiction in designing out crime. In: Farrell G, Bowers KJ, Johnson SD, Townsley M (eds) Imagination for crime prevention: essays in honour of Ken Pease (Crime Prevention Studies 21). Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  2. Beavon DJK, Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1994) The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offences. In: Clarke RV (ed) Crime prevention studies, vol 2. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernasco W, Luykx F (2003) Effect of attractiveness, opportunity and accessibility to burglars on residential burglary rates of urban neighbourhoods. Criminology 41:981–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernasco W, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) How do residential burglars select target areas? Brit J Criminol 45:295–315Google Scholar
  5. Berndt DJ, Fisher JW, Rajendrababu RV (2002) Measuring healthcare inequities using the Gini index. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  6. Bevis C, Nutter JB (1977). Changing street layouts to reduce residential burglary. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology annual meeting in AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  7. Blau P (1977) Inequality and heterogeneity, a primitive theory of social structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1975) Residential burglary and urban form. Urban Stud 12:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1978) A topological technique for regionalization. Environ Behav 10:335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brantingham P, Brantingham P (1981) Notes on the geometry of crime. In: Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (eds) Environmental criminology. Sage, Beverley HillsGoogle Scholar
  11. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1984) Burglar mobility and preventive planning. In: Clarke RV, Hope T (eds) Coping with burglary: research perspectives on policy. Kluwer-Nijhoff, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1993) Environmental routine and situation: towards a pattern theory of crime. Advances Criminol Theory 5:259–294Google Scholar
  13. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (2000) A conceptual model for anticipating crime displacement. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Conference, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  14. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ, Vajihollahi M, Wuschke K (2008) Crime analysis at multiple scales of aggregation: a topological approach. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Ruinsma G (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Budd T (1999) Burglary of domestic dwellings: findings from the British crime survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99. Home Office. LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Bursik RJ (1998) Social disorganisation and theories of crime and delinquency: problems and prospects. Criminology 26:519–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Economic deprivation and neighborhood crime rates, 1960–1980. Law Soc Rev 27(2):263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bursik RJ, Webb J (1982) Community changes and patterns of delinquency. Am J Sociol 88:24–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activities approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cromwell PF, Olson J, Avary D (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  21. Eck J, Chainey S, Cameron JG, Leitner M, Wilson RE (2005) Mapping crime: understanding hot spots. National Institute of Justice, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Farrington DF (1986) Age and crime. Crime Justice 7:189–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gini C (1912) Variabilitá e mutabilita. Reprinted in Memorie di metodologica statistica [Pizetti E, Salvemini T (eds)]. Libreria Eredi Virgilio Veschi, Rome, 1955Google Scholar
  24. Greenberg S, Rohe W (1984) Neighbourhood design and crime: a tale of two perspectives. J Am Plan Assoc 50(1):48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grubesi TH, Matisziw TC, Murray AT, Snediker D (2008) Comparative approaches for assessing network vulnerability. Int Reg Sci Rev 31:88–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hagget P, Chorley RJ (1969) Network analysis in geography. Edward Arnold Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hillier B (2004) Can streets be made safer? Urban Des Int 9:31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hillier B, Sahbaz O (2008) An evidence based approach to crime and urban design. In: Cooper R, Boyko C, Evans G, Adams M (eds) Urban sustainability for the 24 hour city. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Hillier B, Shu S (2000) Crime and urban layout: the need for evidence. In: Ballintyne S, Pease K, McLaren V (eds) Key issues in crime prevention, crime reduction and community safety. IPPR, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Hirschfield AFG, Bowers KJ (1997) The effect of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas. Urban Stud 34(8):1275–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Jeffery CR (1971) Crime prevention through environmental design. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  33. Maguire M, Bennett T (1982) Burglary in a dwelling. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. McFadden DL (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Newman O (1972) Defensible space. Architectural Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. North BV, Curtis D, Sham PC (2002) A note on the calculation of empirical p values from Monte Carlo procedures. Am J Hum Genet 71:439–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pease K (1998) Repeat victimization: taking stock. Home Office Police Research Group, Crime Detection and Prevention Series, Paper 90. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Poyner B (2007) Crime-free housing in the 21st Century. Willan, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  39. Rengert GF, Wasilchick J (2000) Suburban burglary: a tale of two suburbs, 2nd edn. Charles C. Thomas Publishers, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  40. Rudlin D, Falk N (1999) Building the 21st century home: the sustainable urban neighbourhood. Architectural Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime; testing social disorganisation theory. Am J Sociol 9:774–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider RH, Kitchen T (2002) Planning for crime prevention—a transatlantic perspective. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Shu S, Huang JNH (2003) Spatial configuration and vulnerability of residential burglary: a case study of a city in Taiwan. In: Proceedings of the 4th international space syntax symposium, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. White GF (1990) Neighbourhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Q 7:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Security and Crime Science, UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations