University of Groningen
The relation between residential property and its surroundings and day- and night-time
residential burglary
Montoya, Lorena; Junger, Marianne; Ongena, Yfke
Published in:
Environment and Behavior
DOI:
10.1177/0013916514551047
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2016
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Montoya, L., Junger, M., & Ongena, Y. (2016). The relation between residential property and its
surroundings and day- and night-time residential burglary.
Environment and Behavior
,
09
(2014), 516-549.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514551047
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.
More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-
amendment.
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Environment and Behavior
2016, Vol. 48(4) 515 –549
© 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916514551047
eab.sagepub.com
Article
The Relation Between
Residential Property and
Its Surroundings and
Day- and Night-Time
Residential Burglary
Lorena Montoya
1
, Marianne Junger
1
, and
Yfke Ongena
2
Abstract
This article examines how residential property and its surroundings influence
day- and night-time residential burglary. Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED) principles of territoriality, surveillance,
access control, target hardening, image maintenance, and activity support
underpin the study. Data were collected by observing 851 houses in the
city of Enschede, half of which were burgled and half representing a random
selection of houses not burgled. Multilevel multinomial regression models
were estimated for predicting day- and night-time burglaries. The findings
show that territoriality and access control predict daytime burglary while
access control and target hardening predict night-time burglary. The analysis
controls for offender availability, target attractiveness, and residential
stability. The conclusion is that two separate burglary prevention frameworks
are needed: one for day-and another one for night-time burglary.
Keywords
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), environmental
criminology, urban and neighborhood design
1
University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
2
University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Lorena Montoya, Faculty EWI, Services, Cyber-Security and Safety Group, University of
Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Email: a.l.montoya@utwente.nl
551047EABXXX10.1177/0013916514551047Environment and BehaviorMontoya et al.
research-article2014
516 Environment and Behavior 48(4)
Introduction
The rational choice model (Clarke & Cornish, 2010), the routine activities
approach (L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979), and the awareness space concept of
the crime pattern theory (Brantingham & Brantingham, 2008) argue that
crime can be explained by environmental rather than by offender characteris-
tics (Tilley & Laycock, 2007; Wortley & Mazzerole, 2008). It is plausible
that neither of these factors is solely responsible for crime but that both fac-
tors are responsible to some degree.
Research on property crime has focused on how offenders choose targets
and carry out offenses. Rational choice theory assumes that offenders pursue
normal goals like non-offenders do: They evaluate possible actions and
choose the action that maximizes gain and minimizes costs and risks (Clarke
& Cornish, 2010). The concept of limited rationality, however, proposes that
for behavior to be rational, it does not have to be carefully preconceived and
planned or require hierarchical, sequential decision making. It is enough that
decisions are perceived to be optimal (Cromwell & Olson, 2006). According
to the routine activities approach, “rational” choice is carried out during
everyday-life routine activities such as on the way to shopping, entertain-
ment, work, and school. Because some activities take place mainly during the
day while others mainly during the night, the benefits and risks of burglary
might vary by time and location. Offenders attempt to make rational deci-
sions which could shape the urban burglary patterns differently by day or by
night. The present study focuses on the physical environment and its relation
with day- and night-time burglary. More specifically, we investigate whether
burgled houses and non-burgled houses differ with respect to the CPTED
concepts and whether day and night effects exist.
Burglary is mostly opportunistic and often takes place at an opportune
moment when occupants are clearly absent and the house is perceived as
vulnerable (Cromwell & Olson, 2006). A motivated offender must first iden-
tify a vulnerable target and then enter the property without being detected. A
burglar’s decision to “hit” a specific target is based on environmental cues
that are perceived to have immediate consequences.
There is a considerable amount of research on residential burglary
(Comeau & Klofas, 2014; Cozens, 2002; Cozens, Hillier, & Prescott, 2001;
Cozens, Saville, & Hillier, 2005). The driving factors of burglary have been
described in many studies (Bernasco & Luykx, 2003; Bernasco &
Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Comeau & Klofas, 2014; Cozens et al., 2001; Cromwell
& Olson, 2004, 2006; Hakim, Rengert, & Shachmurove, 2001; Nee &
Meenaghan, 2006; A. Piquero & Rengert, 1999; N. L. Piquero, Cohen, &
Piquero, 2010; Ratcliffe, 2003; Snook, 2004; Wright & Decker, 1994).
Montoya et al. 517
Burglars are usually driven by money because it affords them a luxury life-
style, the so-called “Life as a party” described by Wright and Decker (1994).
Besides economic motives, there are also social ones such as peer approval,
status, and idiosyncratic motives, such as revenge, kicks, thrills, pathological
behavior, and rebellion (Cromwell & Olson, 2006).
In addition to burglars’ motives, research has also investigated target
selection and the process of estimating target suitability. Four main catego-
ries have been identified:
a. Familiarity: Most offenders do not travel very far to offend since fa-
miliarity with surroundings reduces stress (Block & Bernasco, 2009;
Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999).
b. Occupancy: Most burglars prefer unoccupied targets. Occupancy cues
include the presence of visible residents or indications that someone
is at home (e.g., noises, lights, vehicles). Visibility and occupancy are
somewhat passive concepts and therefore some prefer the concept of
guardianship (Reynald & Elffers, 2009). Occupancy proxies such as a
dog or a car in the driveway can deter a burglar (Weisel, 2002; Wright
& Decker, 1994).
c. Potential rewards: The main driving factor of burglary is money. Signs
of potential financial rewards in the dwelling play a role in target selec-
tion (Macintyre, 2001).
d. The built environment: Within the environment, the built environment
has a prominent place. Crime Prevention Through Environmental De-
sign (CPTED) concepts represent an operationalization of environ-
mental models of crime. The CPTED approach states that the proper
design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduc-
tion in the fear and incidence of crime, and an improvement in the
quality of life (Cozens et al., 2005; Gibson, 2013).
The origins of CPTED can be traced mainly to the 60s and 70s (Angel,
1968; Jacobs, 1961; Jeffery, 1971; Newman, 1972; Robinson, 2013).
Research findings on the built environment may be applicable to many types
of crime but have until now focused on burglary, although they have also
been applied to robberies (Casteel & Peek-Asa, 2000) and to injury control
(Peek-Asa & Zwerling, 2003). The CPTED concepts are widely used by gov-
ernments as guidelines for “designing out crime.” In the Netherlands, for
example, these concepts can be identified in the Police Marque Secured
Housing, a certification scheme for new and old houses that can be requested
for individual houses, apartment complexes and the neighborhood as a whole.
The certification includes issues such as locks and door standards, type of
518 Environment and Behavior 48(4)
building materials to prevent fire and deter vandalism, as well as lighting
requirements to provide good visibility. The advantage of focusing on the
built environment is that many characteristics are modifiable. Consequently,
the built environment is a prime target for policymakers who wish to prevent
burglary.
Despite the wide application of CPTED principles, the empirical base on
which the CPTED concepts are founded is limited. Below we discuss several
limitations that exist and explain the approach used in this study to address
them.
First, with some exceptions (Armitage, 2007; Brown & Altman, 1983;
Reynald, 2009, 2011), observations have not been used to systematically
measure the CPTED concepts and study their relation with residential bur-
glary. The present research uses observations to measure the CPTED
characteristics.
Second, no systematic evaluation has been conducted to differentiate
between the six concepts and further differentiated them. For example, some
aspects of CPTED relate to characteristics of the property, but some to the
immediate surroundings of the property. Aspects of the property are the
responsibility of the owner, whereas the immediate environment is most
often the responsibility of the (local) government. The comparison of the
effectiveness of property-related versus property surrounding characteristics
is therefore relevant from an urban management viewpoint. The present study
will analyze the findings based on these two levels.
Third, studies investigating the CPTED principles seldom control for a
number of important possible interfering factors, such as target attractive-
ness, offender distribution and social cohesion. An alternative hypothesis to
the CPTED approach is that motivated individuals may not be deterred easily
by environmental characteristics. Despite research evidence showing the rel-
evance of protection measures (Bernasco & Luykx, 2003; Ratcliffe, 2003;
Rossmo, 2000), it is possible that motivated burglars find their way into a
property, regardless of whether it is adequately protected or not (Compton,
Conway, Stinson, Colliver, & Grant, 2005). Contradictory findings have been
reported with respect to the relationship between the socioeconomic charac-
teristics of houses and neighborhoods and burglary. For example, household
income was linked with higher rates of burglary in the United Kingdom and
lower rates in the United States (Tseloni, Wittebrood, Farrell, & Pease, 2004).
Malczewsk and Poetz (2005) reported that both low and high socioeconomic
areas can have relatively high burglary rates. It is possible that within low-
income neighborhoods, burglars prefer the “richer looking” houses (Shaw &
Gifford, 1994). Tilley and Webb (1994) showed that the relationship between
income, burglary, and security is complex and that it varies over time (e.g.,
