The current study employed the International Crime Victimization Survey for 142,665 subjects in 35 countries to compare residential burglary patterns across countries by their developmental levels. The mixed-level modeling shows that households in less developed countries were more likely to experience residential burglary than those in highly developed countries. In addition, married status and low income levels were positively, while living in a detached house was negatively, related to burglary victimization. These findings are consistent with routine activity theory.
BennettRR (1991) Routine activities: A cross-national assessment of a criminological perspective. Social Forces70: 147–163.
3.
BernascoWLuykxF (2003) Effects of attractiveness, opportunity and accessibility to burglars on residential burglary rates of urban neighborhoods. Criminology41: 981–1002.
4.
BursikRJGrasmickHG (1993) Economic deprivation and neighborhood crime rates, 1960-1980. Law and Society Review17: 263–268.
5.
CapowichGE (2003) The conditioning effects of neighborhood ecology on burglary victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior30: 39–61.
6.
ClarkeRVG (1980) ‘Situational’ crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology20: 136–147.
7.
CohenLECantorD (1981) Residential burglary in the United States: Life-style and demographic factors associated with the probability of victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency18: 113–127.
8.
CohenLEFelsonM (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review44: 588–608.
9.
CoupeTBlakeL (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology44: 431–464.
Ham-RowbottomKAGiffordRShawKT (1999) Defensible space theory and the police: Assessing the vulnerability of residences to burglary. Journal of Environmental Psychology19: 117–129.
12.
HeckRHThomasSLTabataLN (2012). Multilevel Modeling of Categorical Outcomes using IBM SPSS: Quantitative Methodology Series. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
HindelangMJGottfredsonMRGarofaloJ (1978) Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.
MessnerSFLuZZhangL. (2007) Risks of criminal victimization in contemporary urban China: An application of lifestyle/ routine activities theory. Justice Quarterly24: 496–522.
17.
MietheTDMeierRF (1994) Crime and its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
18.
NewmanO (1972) Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan.
19.
PhillipsTWalkerJ (1997) State differences in burglary victimization in Australia: A research note. Journal of Sociology33: 91–100.
20.
PollockWJooHLawtonB (2010) Juvenile arrest rates for burglary: A routine activities approach. Journal of Criminal Justice38: 572–579.
21.
RaudenbushSWBrykA (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
RosenfeldR (2011) The big picture: 2010 presidential address to the American Society of Criminology. Criminology49: 1–26.
23.
RoundtreePWLandKC (1996) Burglary victimization, perceptions of crime risk, and routine activities: A multilevel analysis across Seattle neighborhoods and census tracts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency33: 147–180.
24.
SpanoRFreilichJD (2009) An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/ routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice37: 305–314.
25.
TabriziLRMadanipourA (2006) Crime and the city: Domestic burglary and the built environment in Tehran. Habitat International30: 932–944.
26.
The United Nations Development Program (2002) Human Development Report. The United Nations Development Program. Available at: http://www.undo.org(accessed 22 May 2015).
27.
TilleyNTseloniAFarrellG (2011) Income disparities of burglary risk. British Journal of Criminology51: 296–313.
28.
TseloniAWittebroodKFarrellG. (2004) Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology44: 66–91.
29.
UludagSColvinMHusseyD. (2009) Democracy, inequality, modernization, routine activities, and international variations in personal crime victimization. International Criminal Justice Review19:265–286.
30.
Van KesterenJVan DijkJMayhewP (2014) The international crime victims surveys: A retrospective. International Review of Victimology20: 49–69.
31.
WaymanJC (2003). Multiple imputation for missing data: What it and how can I use it?Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Educational Research, Chicago, IL.
32.
WellsmithMBurrellA (2005) The influence of purchase price and ownership levels on theft targets. British Journal of Criminology45: 741–764.
33.
WilcoxPMadensenTDTillyerMS (2007) Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology45: 771–803.
34.
YuanYC (2000) Multiple imputation for missing data: Concepts and new developments. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference (Paper No. 267). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
35.
ZhangLMessnerSFLiuJ (2007) A multilevel analysis of the risk of household burglary in the city of Tianjin, China. British Journal of Criminology 47: 918-937.
