Ecological and Behavioral Influences on Property Victimization at Home: Implications for Opportunity Theory

The purpose of this article is to test criminal opportunity theories of victimization for the crimes of burglary and household larceny. Using the National Crime Survey and the Victim Risk Supplement, this test includes direct behavioral and ecological measures of concepts central to the theory. Ecological concepts are measured at several different levels of aggregation. Of particular importance is the introduction of a control for the dangerousness of the block in which the housing unit is located. Other ecological variables include (a) the environmental design of the housing unit (location, protective practices, single family versus other), (b) the degree of social disorganization in the neighborhood, (c) the location of commercial establishments in the neighborhood, and (d) the perceived dangerousness of the neighborhood. Measures of key behavioral concepts include (a) time spent in the house during the day, and (b) time spent in the house during the evening. None of the environmental design variables have a significant effect on victimization. The significance of the other ecological and behavioral measures differ by type of crime. These results are discussed in light of the importance of refining opportunity concepts, especially with respect to how they apply to different types of crime.

[1]  R. Clarke Situational Crime Prevention: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Scope , 1983 .

[2]  J. S. Long,et al.  Social Differentiation in Criminal Victimization: A Test of Routine Activities/Lifestyle Theories , 1987 .

[3]  A. Hunter Symbolic communities: The persistence and change of Chicago's local communities , 1974 .

[4]  G. Jarjoura,et al.  Household Characteristics, Neighborhood Composition and Victimization Risk , 1989 .

[5]  Lawrence E. Cohen,et al.  Residential Burglary in the United States: Life-Style and Demographic Factors Associated With the Probability of Victimization , 1981 .

[6]  Robert J. Bursik,et al.  Community Change and Patterns of Delinquency , 1982, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  Richard Sparks,et al.  Surveying victims: A study of the measurement of criminal victimization, perceptions of crime, and attitudes to criminal justice , 1979 .

[8]  M. Maxfield Household composition, routine activity, and victimization: A comparative analysis , 1987 .

[9]  Paul F. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Latent Structure Analysis. , 1969 .

[10]  H. A. Scarr,et al.  Patterns of burglary , 1973 .

[11]  Patrick A. Langan,et al.  Job activities and personal crime victimization: Implications for theory☆ , 1987 .

[12]  Robert J. Sampson,et al.  Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization , 1987 .

[13]  James P. Lynch,et al.  Routine activity and victimization at work , 1987 .

[14]  Offenders' choice of target: Findings from victim surveys , 1987 .

[15]  D. G. Taylor,et al.  Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America , 1987 .

[16]  Michael R. Gottfredson Victims of crime: The dimensions of risk , 1984 .

[17]  James R. Kluegel,et al.  Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of a Formal Theory , 1981 .

[18]  Lawrence E. Cohen,et al.  Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach , 1979 .

[19]  Lyle W. Shannon Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social Context , 1988 .

[20]  R. Clarke,et al.  UNDERSTANDING CRIME DISPLACEMENT: AN APPLICATION OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY , 1987 .

[21]  R. Stark DEVIANT PLACES: A THEORY OF THE ECOLOGY OF CRIME , 1987 .

[22]  W. Rohe,et al.  Safe and secure neighborhoods : physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime neighborhoods , 1982 .

[23]  C. Ray Jeffery Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design , 1971 .