Previous research evaluating burglars' offending location choices has produced mixed findings about the influence of physical barriers and connectors on offender movement patterns. Consequently, this article utilises the discrete spatial choice approach to formally evaluate the impact of barriers and connectors on residential burglars' macro-level offending location choices. Data from Perth, Western Australia, demonstrated that physical barriers and connectors exert significant influence on offender decision-making at this level, and that the influence of impermeable barriers increases with proximity of these obstacles to the offender's point of origin. These findings provide formalised evidence for the independent importance of physical barriers and connectors in offender movement and are discussed with respect to current environmental criminology theory.
References
1.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). CDATA 2001 Release 2 — CD-ROM. Canberra, Australia: Author.
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Household income and income distribution, Australia 2002 (No. 6523.0). Canberra, Australia: Author.
3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Crime and Safety—Australia 2005, Cat. No. 4509.0. Canberra: Author.
4.
BarclayP.BuckleyJ.BrantinghamP.J.BrantinghamP.L.Whin-YatesT. (1997). Preventing auto theft in commuter lots: a bike patrol in Vancouver. In ClarkeR.V. (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: successful case studies (2nd ed., pp. 143–156). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
5.
BeavonD.BrantinghamP.L.BrantinghamP.J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offences. In ClarkeR.V. (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 115–148). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
6.
BernascoW. (2006). Co-offending and the choice of target areas in burglary. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 3, 139–155.
7.
BernascoW.NieuwbeertaP. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice. British Journal of Criminology, 45(3), 296–315.
8.
BottomsA.E.MawbyR.I.WalkerM.A. (1987). A localised crime survey in contrasting areas of a city. British Journal of Criminology, 27(2), 125–154.
9.
BowersK.JohnsonS.HirschfieldA. (2005). Closing off opportunities for crime: An evaluation of alleygating. European Journal of Criminology, 10(4), 285–308.
10.
BrantinghamP.J.BrantinghamP.L. (1984). Patterns in crime. New York: Macmillan.
11.
BrantinghamP.L.BrantinghamP.J. (1991). Notes on the geometry of crime. In BrantinghamP.L.BrantinghamP.J. (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 27–54). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
12.
BrantinghamP.L.BrantinghamP.J. (2000). A conceptual model for anticipating crime displacement. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
13.
BrantinghamP.L.BrantinghamP.J. (2003). Anticipating the displacement of crime using the principles of environmental criminology. Crime Prevention Studies, 16, 119–148.
14.
BrantinghamP.L.BrantinghamP.J.WongP. (1991). How public transit feeds private crime: Notes on the Vancouver ‘skytrain’ experience. Security Journal, 2(2), 91–95.
15.
ChaineyS.RatcliffeJ. (2005). GIS and crime mapping. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
ClarkeR.V. (1997). Introduction. In ClarkeR.V. (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed., pp. 1–45). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
18.
ClarkeR.V.CornishD.B. (1985). Modeling offenders' decisions: a framework for policy and research. In TonryM.MorrisN. (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 6). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
ClarkeR.V.FelsonM. (Eds.). (1993). Introduction: criminology, routine activity, and rational choice. Routine activity and rational choice (pp. 259–294). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
20.
CohenL.E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
21.
CornishD.B.ClarkeR.V. (1986). Introduction. In CornishD.B.ClarkeR.V. (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 1–16). New York: Springer-Verlag.
22.
Crime Research Centre. (2003). Crime and justice statistics for Western Australia: 2003. Perth, Australia: Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia.
23.
DunbarS.R. (1997). The average distance between points in geometric figures. The College Mathematics Journal, 28(3), 187–197.
24.
ElffersH.ReynaldD.AverdijkM.BernascoW.BlockR. (2008). Modelling crime flow between neighbourhoods in terms of distance and of intervening opportunities. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 10(2), 85–96.
25.
FelsonM. (2002). The topography of crime. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 4(1), 47–51.
26.
GaborT. (1984). Offender characteristics and spatial mobility: An empirical study and some policy implications. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26, 267–281.
27.
GelmanA.PasaricaC.DodhiaR. (2002). Statistical computing and graphs — let's practice what we preach: Turning tables into graphs. The American Statistician, 56(2), 121–130.
28.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
29.
HesselingR.B.P. (1992). Using data on offender mobility in ecological research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8(1), 95–112.
30.
KastellecJ.P.LeoniE.L. (2007). Using graphs instead of tables in political science. Perspectives on Politics, 5(4), 755–763.
31.
McFaddenD. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In ZarembkaP. (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
32.
NeeC.MeenaghanA. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 935–949.
33.
NeeC.TaylorM. (2000). Examining burglars' target selection: Interview, experiment or ethnomethodology. Psychology, Crime and Law, 6, 45–59.
34.
PeetersM.P. (2007). The influence of physical barriers on the journey-to-crime of offenders. The Netherlands: Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR).
35.
RatcliffeJ.H. (2001). Residential burglars and urban barriers: A quantitative spatial study of the impact of Canberra's unique geography on residential burglary offenders, Final Report. Canberra, Australia: Criminology Research Council.
36.
RatcliffeJ.H. (2003). Suburb boundaries and residential burglars (No. 246). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
37.
RengertG.F. (1981). Burglary in Philadelphia: A critique of an opportunity structure model. In BrantinghamP.J.BrantinghamP.L. (Eds.), Environmental Criminology (pp. 189–201). London: Sage Publications.
RhodesW.M.ConlyC. (1981). Crime and mobility: An empirical study. In BrantinghamP.J.BrantinghamP.L. (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 167–188). Beverly Hills, London: Sage Publications.
40.
RountreeP.W.LandK.C. (2000). The generalizability of multilevel models of burglary victimization: A cross-city comparison. Social Science Research, 29, 284–305.
41.
RubackR.B.GreenbergM.S.WestcottD.R. (1984). Social influence and crime-victim decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 40(1), 51–76.
42.
SampsonR.J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 7–40.
43.
SampsonR.J.GrovesW.B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.
44.
SedelmaierC. (2003). Railroaded: The effects of a new public transport system upon local crime patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, Rutgers, NJ.
45.
SedelmaierC. (2003). Railroaded: The effects of a new public transport system upon local crime patterns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, Rutgers, NJ.Simcha-Fagan, O., & Schwartz, J. (1986). Neighborhood and delinquency: An assessment of contextual effects. Criminology, 24(4), 667–703.
46.
SmithD.A.JarjouraG.R. (1989). Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk. Social Forces, 68(2), 621–640.
47.
SmithM.ClarkeR. (2000). Crime and public transport. Crime and Justice, 27, 169–233.
48.
SmithT.S. (1976). Inverse distance variations for the flow of crime in urban areas. Social Forces, 54(4), 802–815.
49.
SwaitJ. (2005). Advanced choice models. In B. Kanninen (Ed.), Valuing environmental amenities using choice experiments: A common sense guide to theory and practice. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Science.
50.
SwartzC. (2000). The spatial analysis of crime: What social scientists have learned. In GoldsmithV.McGuireP.G.MollenkopfJ.H.RossT.A. (Eds.), Analyzing crime patterns: Frontiers of practice (pp. 33–46). London: Sage Publications.
TrewinD. (2003). Census of population and housing: Socio-economic indexes for areas, Australia 2001 (Cat.No.2039.0: Information Paper). Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
53.
TseloniA.OsbornD.R.TrickettA.PeaseK. (2002). Modelling property crime using the British Crime Survey: what have we learnt?British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 109–128.
54.
TurnerS. (1969). Delinquency and distance. In SellinT.WolfgangMarvin E. (Eds.), Delinquency: Selected studies (pp. 11–26). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
55.
Van KoppenP.J.De KeijserJ.W. (1997). Desisting distance decay: On the aggregation of individual crime trips. Criminology, 35(3), 505–515.
56.
WardD.A.StaffordM.C.GrayL.N. (2006). Rational choice, deterrence, and theoretical integration. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 571–585.
57.
WilesP.,CostelloA. (2000). The ‘road to nowhere’: The evidence for travelling criminals (No. 207). London: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.
58.
WrightR.DeckerS.H. (1994). Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential break-ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
59.
ZavoskiR.W.LapidusG.D.LererT.J.BurkeG.BancoL.I. (1999). Evaluating the impact of a street barrier on urban crime. Injury Prevention, 5(1), 65–68.
