The likelihood of being a victim of property crime is modelled using the characteristics of the individual household and of the area. In addition to total property crime, we separately consider the components of burglary, theft and criminal damage. In all cases, both area and individual variables are significant predictors of victimisation risk, but the area is generally more important than the individual. We also find that an unexplained correlation remains between households within the same area. To caricature our overall results, young professionals living in detached or semi-detached houses in poor areas are particularly likely to fall victim to crime.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BottomsA.E.ClaytorA.C.WilesP. (1992). Housing markets and residential community crime careers. In Crime, Policing and Place: Essays in Environmental Criminology (EvansD.J.FyfeN.R.HerbertD.T., eds). Routledge; London.
2.
BottomsA.E.WilesP. (1992). Explanations of crime and place. In Crime, Policing and Place: Essays in Environmental Criminology (EvansD.J.FyfeN.R.HerbertD.T., eds). Routledge; London.
3.
CarterR.L.HillK.Q. (1979). The Criminal's Image of the City. Pergamon; New York.
4.
FarringtonD.P. (1993). Have any individual, family or neighbourhood influences on offending been demonstrated conclusively? In Integrating Individual and Ecological Aspects of Crime (FarringtonD.P.SampsonR.J.WikstromP.-O.H., eds). National Council of Crime Prevention; Stockholm, Sweden.
5.
GoldsteinH. (1991). Nonlinear multilevel models with an application to discrete response data. Biometrika, 73, 43–56.
6.
HaleC.PeckP.SalkedJ. (1994). The structural determinants of fear of crime: an analysis using census and crime survey data from England and Wales. International Review of Victimology, 3, 211–233.
7.
HoughM.MayhewP. (1985). Taking Account of Crime: Key Findings from the Second British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study No. 85. Her Majesty's Stationery Office: London.
8.
KennedyL.W.FordeD.R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: an analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology, 28, 137–152.
9.
McCullaghP.NeldorJ.A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, second edition. Chapman and Hall; London.
10.
MaxfieldM.G. (1987). Household composition, routine activity, and victimisation: a comparative analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 301–320.
11.
MietheT.D. (1991). Citizen-based crime control activity and victimization risks: an examination of displacement and free-rider effects. Criminology, 29, 419–439.
12.
MietheT.D.StaffordM.Scott LongJ. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: a test of routine activities/lifestyle theory. American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194.
13.
NOP Market Research Limited (1985). 1984 British Crime Survey: Technical Report. NOP; Southampton.
14.
OsbornD.R.TrickettA.ElderR. (1992). Area characteristics and regional variates as determinants of area property crime levels. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 265–285.
15.
OsbornS.G. (1980). Moving home, leaving London and delinquent trends. British Journal of Criminology, 20, 54–61.
16.
RengertG.WasilchickJ. (1985). Suburban Burglary. Charles C. Thomas; Springfield Illinois.
17.
SampsonR.J.GrovesW.B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganisation theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.
18.
SampsonR.J.WooldredgeJ.D. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimisation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371–393.
19.
ShawC.R.McKayM.D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago University Press; Chicago.
20.
TrickettA.OsbornD.R.SeymourJ.PeaseK. (1992). What is different about high crime areas?British Journal of Criminology, 32, 81–89.
21.
TrickettA.OsbornD.R.EllingworthD. (1993). Simple and repeat victimisation: the influences of individual and area characteristics. Discussion Paper ES239, Department of Econometrics and Social Statistics, University of Manchester.
