Advertisement

Crime Prevention and Community Safety

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 65–79 | Cite as

The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal

  • Meghan E Hollis
  • Marcus Felson
  • Brandon C Welsh
Original Article

Abstract

Guardianship or the absence of capable guardianship is a central element in routine activities theory, and has been the subject of research for more than 30 years. The original conceptualization of guardianship has been interpreted and expanded upon in many ways during this period of time. This article charts the evolution of research on the guardianship component of routine activities theory and provides a theoretical and conceptual reappraisal of guardianship. Aiding future empirical research is a central aim of this endeavor. A refined definition of guardianship is presented that is consistent with its original conceptualization and new theoretical advancements. Implications for theory and research are discussed.

Keywords

routine activities theory guardianship defensible space environmental criminology social control 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

References

  1. Bennett, R. (1991) Routine activities: A cross-national assessment of a criminological perspective. Social Forces 70 (1): 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1982) Mobility, notoriety, and crime: A study of crime patterns in urban nodal points. Journal of Environmental Systems 11 (1): 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1981) Environmental Criminology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Brantingham, P.L. and Brantingham, P.J. (1993) Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (1): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coupe, T. and Blake, L. (2006) Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology 44 (2): 431–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eck, J.E. (1994) Drug markets and drug places. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  8. Eck, J.E. (2003) Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation. In: J. Knutsson (ed.) Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 79–113.Google Scholar
  9. Eck, J.E. and Weisburd, D. (eds.) (1994) Crime and Place. Vol. 4, Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Felson, M. (1986) Routine activities, social controls, rational decisions, and criminal outcomes. In: D. Cornish and R.V. Clarke (eds.) The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Felson, M. (1995) Those who discourage crime. In: J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd (eds.) Crime and Place. Vol. 4, Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 53–66.Google Scholar
  13. Felson, M. (2006) Crime and Nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 80.Google Scholar
  14. Felson, M. and Boba, R. (2010) Crime and Everyday Life, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 28–30, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garofalo, J. and Clark, D. (1992) Guardianship and residential burglary. Justice Quarterly 9 (3): 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hollis-Peel, M.E., Reynald, D.M., van Bavel, M., Elffers, H. and Welsh, B.C. (2011) Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law and Social Change 56 (1): 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeffery, C.R. (1977) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, 2nd edn. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Miethe, T.D. and Meier, R.F. (1994) Crime and Its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims and Situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Miethe, T.D., Stafford, M.C. and Sloane, D. (1990) Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 6 (4): 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mustaine, E.E. and Tewksbury, R. (1998) Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology 36 (4): 829–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newman, O. (1972) Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Rengert, G. and Wasilchick, J. (1985) Suburban Burglar: A Tale of Two Suburbs. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.Google Scholar
  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. 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. 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
  26. Sampson, R., Eck, J.E. and Dunham, J. (2010) Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal 23 (1): 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stahura, J.M. and Sloan, J.J. (1988) Urban stratification of places, routine activities and suburban crime rates. Social Forces 66 (4): 1102–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tewksbury, R. and Mustaine, E.E. (2003) College students’ lifestyles and self-protective behaviors: Further considerations of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior 30 (3): 302–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tilley, N. (2009) Crime Prevention. Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  30. Tillyer, M.S. and Eck, J.E. (2010) Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory. Security Journal 24 (2): 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G. and Pease, K. (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
  32. Wilcox, P., Madensen, T.D. and Tillyer, M.S. (2007) Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization, risk and prevention. Criminology 45 (4): 771–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghan E Hollis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marcus Felson
    • 3
  • Brandon C Welsh
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law EnforcementAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Texas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations