Lifestyles, Routine Activities, and Residential Burglary Victimization

Abstract

This paper reports findings from an exploratory, place specific study of the relationship between victims' lifestyles, routine activities, and residential burglary victimization. A telephone survey differentiated people with various lifestyles in terms of daily obligatory and discretionary activities. These differential lifestyles were related to variations in routine activities (i.e., pedestrian and automotive traffic) on street segments around residential areas. In a pooled cross-sectional design, street segments with higher volumes of routine activities between 1992-1996 had significantly lower burglary rates over this time period, as did street blocks with irregular periods of routine activities in 1997. Implications are discussed for the lifestyle I exposure and routine activity theories and for the movement in criminology away from explaining why individual offenders commit crimes, toward explaining why crimes happen at particular places at particular times and not others.

Understanding Elder Sexual Abuse and the Criminal Justice System's Response: Comparisons to Elder Physical Abuse

“…Witnesses and criminal penalties are potential examples of capable guardians. In developing prevention strategies highlighted above, it would seem useful to use the tenets of routine activities theory as a guide (Robinson, 1999). Indeed, some criminologists have shown how routine activities theory relates to theft in nursing homes (Harris, 1999) and patient abuse in nursing homes (Payne & Gainey, 2006).…”

The influence of perceptions of social disorder and victimization on business owners' decisions to use guardianship strategies

“…Criminologists have also used routine activities theory to address crimes occurring in bars (Roncek & Maier, 1991), parking lots (Hollinger & Dabney, 1999), prison (Wooldredge, 1998), the streets (Robinson, 1999) and the work place (Lynch, 1997;Wooldredge, Cullen, & Latessa, 1992). Also attesting to the versatility of this approach, routine activities theory has also been used to examine the victimization risks of diverse groups including college students (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999), college faculty (Wooldredge et al, 1992), and punk rockers (Kennedy & Baron, 1993).…”

“…Routine activities theory has provided a foundation for understanding a wide variety of criminal activities, including vandalism (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2000), burglary (Cohn & Rotton, 2000;Robinson, 1999;Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2000), family violence (Kelly, 1993;Payne & Gainey, 2004), maritime piracy (Worrall, 2000), motor vehicle theft (Copes, 1999), arson (Stahura & Hollinger, 1988), larceny (Cohn & Rotton, 2000), and drinking behavior (Fox & Sobol, 2000). While some argue that the theory better explains property crimes than violent crimes (Bennett, 1991;Miethe, Stafford, & Long, 1987), others find routine activities theory particularly useful for explaining homicides (Caywood, 1998), stalking (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999), child sexual abuse (Mannon, 1997), and assaults (Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2000).…”

Crime mapping and Geographical Information Systems in crime analysis

“…Ratcliffe (2004), in his article, concisely relates criminals' daily routines to the routine activities of ordinary people with consideration of criminal theories and explains how geographic profiling uses this relation for investigating criminals: "….offenders will have similar routine activities in their lives, but these areas of familiarity will also be the search areas for opportunities offend. While Cohen and Felson's Routine Activity Theory can be interpreted as an indication of victim behavior (Robinson 1999), crime pattern theory can be considered of the offender equivalent, indicating areas of likely criminal behavior. At the coming together of the victim and offender is a rational choice by the offender to take advantage (or not) of any criminal opportunity that is presented (Clarke and Felson 1993).…”