General multilevel opportunity theory draws from a range of existing opportunity theories that collectively account for variation in criminal opportunity across various levels of analysis. The theory, which is inclusive in its conceptualization of criminal opportunity, specifies macro- and micro-influences and their interactive effects. There is a growing body of multilevel victimization research that supports the propositions of the theory. To date, however, general multilevel opportunity theory has been underutilized as a theory of crime events and situational prevention. This article describes general multilevel opportunity theory, reviews its empirical status, and offers new extensions and applications of the theory for crime-event research and situational prevention.
BernascoW.BlockR. (2009). Where offenders choose to attack: A discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology, 47, 93-130.
2.
BernascoW.RuiterS.BruinsmaG. J. N.PauwelsL. J. R.WeermanF. M. (2013). Situational causes of offending: A fixed-effects analysis of space-time budget data. Criminology, 51, 895-926.
3.
BernburgJ. G.ThorlindssonT. (2001). Routine activities in social context: A closer look at the role of opportunity in deviant behavior. Justice Quarterly, 18, 543-567.
4.
BrantinghamP. J.BrantinghamP. L. (1991). Environmental criminology (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
5.
BrantinghamP. L.BrantinghamP. J. (1993). Nodes, paths, and edge considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3-28.
6.
BrantinghamP. L.BrantinghamP. J. (1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3, 5-26.
7.
BurrowJ. D.ApelR. (2008). Youth behavior, school structure, and student risk of victimization. Justice Quarterly, 25, 349-380.
8.
ClarkeR. V. (2004). Technology, criminology and crime science. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 55-63.
9.
ClarkeR. V.CornishD. B. (1985). Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for research and policy. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 6, 147-185.
10.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
11.
CohenL. E.FelsonM.LandK. C. (1980). Property crime rates in the United States: A macrodynamic analysis, 1947-1977, with ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s. The American Journal of Sociology, 86, 90-118.
12.
CohenL. E.KluegelJ. R.LandK. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505-524.
13.
CornishD. B.ClarkeR. V. (2008). The rational choice perspective. In WortleyR.MazerolleL. (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 21-47). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
14.
CoupeT.BlakeL. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44, 431-464.
15.
DeakinJ.SmithsonH.SpencerJ.Medina-ArizaJ. (2007). Taxing on the streets: Understanding the methods and process of street robbery. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 9, 52-67.
16.
EckJ. E. (1994). Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.
17.
EckJ. E. (2002). Learning from experience in problem-oriented policing and situational prevention: The positive functions of weak evaluations and the negative functions of strong ones. In TilleyN. (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 14, pp. 93-117). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
18.
EckJ. E. (2005). Evaluation for lesson learning. In TilleyN. (Ed.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (pp. 699-733). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
19.
FelsonM. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In CornishD.ClarkeR. V. (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 119-128). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
20.
FelsonM.ClarkeR. V. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention (Police Research Series No. 98). London, England: Home Office.
21.
FisherB. S.SloanJ. J.CullenF. T.LuC. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: The level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671-710.
22.
HindelangM. J.GottfredsonM. R.GarofaloJ. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
23.
HirschiT. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In ClarkeR. V.CornishD. B. (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 105-118). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
24.
KennedyL. W.FordeD. R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology, 28, 137-152.
25.
LauritsenJ. L. (2001). The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 3-32.
26.
MaimonD.BrowningC. R. (2010). Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology, 48, 443-474.
27.
MessnerS. F.BlauJ. R. (1987). Routine leisure activities and rates of crime: A macro-level analysis. Social Forces, 65, 1035-1052.
28.
MietheT. D.McDowallD. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71, 741-759.
29.
MietheT. D.MeierR. F. (1994). Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany: State University of New York Press.
30.
MietheT. D.StaffordM. C.LongJ. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. American Sociological Review, 52, 184-194.
31.
MillerJ. (2013). Individual offending, routine activities, and activity settings: Revisiting the routine activity theory of general deviance. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 390-416.
32.
NewmanO. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York, NY: Macmillan.
33.
OsgoodD. W.AndersonA. L. (2004). Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology, 42, 519-549.
34.
OsgoodD. W.WilsonJ. K.O’MalleyP. M.BachmanJ. G.JohnstonL. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635-655.
35.
OutlawM.RubackB.BrittC. (2002). Repeat and multiple victimizations: The role of individual and contextual factors. Violence and Victims, 17, 187-204.
RengertG. F.WasilchickJ. (2000). Suburban burglary: A tale of two suburbs (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
38.
ReynaldD.AverdijkM.ElffersH.BernascoW. (2008). Do social barriers affect urban crime trips? The effects of ethnic and economic neighbourhood compositions on the flow of crime in The Hague, The Netherlands. Built Environment, 34, 21-31.
39.
RoncekD. W.LoBoscoA. (1983). The effect of high schools on crime in their neighborhoods. Social Science Quarterly, 64, 598-613.
40.
RoncekD. W.MaierP. A. (1991). Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: Linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots.”Criminology, 29, 725-753.
41.
SampsonR. J.WooldredgeJ. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371-393.
42.
SchreckC. J.MillerJ. M.GibsonC. L. (2003). Trouble in the school yard: A study of the risk factors of victimization at school. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 460-484.
43.
SmithD. A.JarjouraG. R. (1989). Household characteristics, neighborhood composition, and victimization risk. Social Forces, 68, 621-640.
44.
TillyerM. S. (2010). Multicontextual opportunity theory. In CullenF. T.WilcoxP. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 1008-1011). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
45.
TillyerM. S.EckJ. E. (2011). Getting a handle on crime: A further extension of routine activities theory. Security Journal, 24, 179-193.
46.
TillyerM. S.FisherB. S.WilcoxP. (2011). The effects of school crime prevention on students’ violent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: A multilevel opportunity perspective. Justice Quarterly, 28, 249-277.
47.
TillyerM. S.TillyerR. (2014). Violence in context: A multilevel analysis of victim injury in robbery incidents. Justice Quarterly, 31, 767-791.
48.
WelshW. N. (2001). Effects of student and school factors on five measures of school disorder. Justice Quarterly, 18, 911-947.
49.
WhiteG. F. (1990). Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly, 7, 57-67.
50.
WilcoxP.GialopsosB. M.LandK. C. (2013). Multilevel criminal opportunity. In CullenF. T.WilcoxP. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 579-601). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
51.
WilcoxP.LandK. C.HuntS. A. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic, multi-contextual criminal opportunity theory. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
52.
WilcoxP.MadensenT. D.TillyerM. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary risk and prevention. Criminology, 45, 771-804.
53.
WilcoxP.TillyerM. S. (in press). Place and neighborhood contexts. In EckJ. E.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Connecting crime to place: New directions in theory and policy: Advances in criminological theory. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
54.
Wilcox RountreeP.LandK. C. (2000). The generalizability of multilevel models of burglary victimization: A cross-city comparison. Social Science Research, 29, 284-305.
55.
Wilcox RountreeP.LandK. C.MietheT. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32, 387-414.
56.
WrightR. T.DeckerS. H. (1994). Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential breakins. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
57.
WrightR. T.DeckerS. H. (1997). Armed robbers in action: Stickups and street culture. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
