See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328839261

Routine Activity Theory

Chapter · January 2014

DOI: 10.1002/9781118517390/wbetc198

CITATIONS READS

18 27,740

1 author:

Fernando Miró-Llinares
Universidad Miguel Hernández de Elche
114 PUBLICATIONS 1,000 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

<<Del discurso de la derrota al discurso del diálogo. Justicia transicional, memoria histórica y Constitución.>> View project

Responsabilidad penal de personas jurídicas y programas de compliance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fernando Miró-Llinares on 09 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Routine Activity Theory of real policies and practices aimed at altering the
necessary elements that make the existence of a
crime possible and thereby preventing it (Tilley,
FERNANDO MIRÓ
2009).
In their seminal article, “Social change and
Routine activity theory, first formulated by crime rate trends: A routine activity approach”,
Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) Cohen and Felson (1979) pointed out an impor-
and later developed by Felson, is one of the most tant sociological paradox: while indicators of
widely cited and influential theoretical constructs well-being and socioeconomic conditions, which
in the field of criminology and in crime science had until then been considered causes of violent
more broadly. In contrast to theories of crimi- crime – such as poverty, lack of education, and
nality, which are centered on the figure of the unemployment – had generally improved in the
criminal and the psychological, biological, or 1960s, reports of crime rates indicated that there
social factors that motivated the criminal act, the was a significant increase in crime during these
focus of routine activity is the study of crime as years. To explain this contradiction, they focused
an event, highlighting its relation to space and on changes in structural patterns of people’s daily
time and emphasizing its ecological nature and activity and how the new configuration provided
the implications thereof. greater criminal opportunities and, therefore,
In their initial formulation, Cohen and Felson could influence the trends observed in rates of
postulated that changes in the structure of the certain types of crime, in particular crimes against
patterns of daily activity of people in cities fol- persons or property (Felson & Cohen, 1980).
lowing World War II could explain the rise in The transformations in modern society to
crime that had occurred, according to leading which the authors refer, revealed through var-
studies at the time. Their hypothesis was that ious questionnaires and reports, lent a greater
postmodernity had facilitated the convergence importance to activities away from the home.
in space and time of likely offenders with the For example, women’s participation in the labor
goal of committing crimes against suitable targets force and access to higher education, as well as
in the absence of capable guardians. From this an increase in vacation length, trips outside the
they derived two apparently simple ideas with city, or permanent relocation, increased contact
significant implications: first, that the opportu- with possible offenders and left homes empty and
nity for crime may depend on a configuration of unprotected. In addition, technological advances
distinct (though not disaggregated) elements of during this period led to the appearance and
the aggressor or criminal; second, a correlate of consumption of small electronic appliances such
the first, that the absence of either of the first two as televisions, video recorders, and stereo equip-
elements (aggressor and target) or the presence of ment, with higher values and lower weights that
the third (capable guardians) would be sufficient made them very attractive and easy to remove and
in itself to prevent a potential criminal event. transport. Finally, the appearance of automated
Routine activity theory is, in short, an attempt teller machines, an increase in bank transactions,
to identify, at a macro-level, criminal activities deposits, and withdrawals, together with changes
and their patterns through explanation of changes in daily activity related to the circulation of
in crime rate trends (Cohen & Felson, 1979). It property, generally increased the mobility and
is based on criminal events, on the distribution visibility of consumer goods. In short, the grow-
and grouping in space and time of the minimal ing number of available objects, the increased
elements that make them up, rather than on the number of unguarded homes, and the greater
search for offenders’ motives, and it thus offers a possibilities of direct contact between persons or
frame of reference for concrete and individual- their property and offenders brought about an
ized crime analysis and facilitates the application increase in suitable targets and a decrease

The Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology, First Edition. Edited by J. Mitchell Miller.

© 2014 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2014 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118517390/wbetc198
2 R OUTINE A CTIVITY THEORY

in capable guardians to prevent crimes, and activities: (a) a potential offender with the capac-
therefore an environment of greater opportunity. ity to commit a crime; (b) a suitable target or
Cohen and Felson (1979) tested their expla- victim; and finally (c) the absence of guardians
nation for changes in crime trends through capable of protecting targets and victims.
empirical evaluation of their principal postu- The likely offender may be anyone with a motive
lates. In order to confirm that the dispersion to commit a crime and with the capacity to do so
of activities away from the home and the fam- (Felson & Cohen, 1980), although it is most likely
ily could increase the possibility of becoming to be a young man, without stable employment,
a suitable target and diminish the presence of who has failed in school, and who has a record
capable guardians; to confirm that the suitability of traffic accidents and emergency room visits
of targets influenced predatory contacts and that (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Although in their
solitary life, away from the family environment, initial formulation Cohen and Felson (1979) used
could raise victimization rates; and, finally, to the term “motivated offender”, in later works, par-
try to verify that the rise in crime was related ticularly those of Felson (among others, Felson &
to changes in the structure of daily activities in Boba, 2010; Felson & Cohen, 1980) they avoided
American life, they turned to various studies that the term “motivated” in refering to the offender,
provided sufficient empirical support to confirm as what they truly considered relevant was not
their hypotheses. Thus, for example, they utilized disposition or motivation to commit a crime but
Hindelang’s victimization surveys (1976) to con- rather the physical factors that made it possible
firm that activities performed away from home for a person to be involved in crime. What this
presented greater risks than those performed at approach contributed was an articulation of the
home. They also defined the household activity need to divert attention away from the offender
ratio, which provided an estimate of the propor- in order to understand the crime (Felson, 1995),
tion of American households most exposed to given that the focus had been exclusively on him
the risk of personal or property victimization. or her. Nevertheless, although it was necessary to
Although the relationship between some ele- pay attention to other aspects of crime in order
ments of the criminal event in space and time to understand and prevent it (Felson & Clarke,
had already been recognized by earlier theories 1998), this never meant leaving aside the “point
such as the older ecological theories of Shaw and of view” of the offender (Felson, 2008), given that,
McKay (Shaw et al., 1929), as well as Hirschi’s as we shall see, the very definition of the target
social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) and oth- as “suitable” is made through the understanding
ers, Cohen and Felson not only identified the of the purposes and capacities of the aggressor in
socio-environmental aspect of the crime event relation to intrinsic characteristics of the potential
but also, by focusing on routine activities, offered targets of crime.
a model with great expressive power to explain The suitable target is a person or property that
the “ecological” nature of crime and demonstrate may be threatened by an offender. Felson prefers
how elements apparently unconnected to the the term “target” to “victim,” as the former high-
illegal activity may shape and determine it (or lights the fact that the majority of crimes are
its absence). Thus, for example, many techno- aimed at obtaining goods, and therefore the “vic-
logical advances for legitimate purposes, such tim” may be absent from the place of the crime
as automobiles, electronic devices, highways, or (Felson & Clarke, 1998). The probability that a
telephones, may be used by offenders for their target will be more or less suitable is influenced
illegitimate activities. That is to say, the structure by four attributes, described from the point of the
of routine legal activities also determines how view of the offender by the acronym VIVA (value,
crime is organized in society as well as where it inertia, visibility, and access), which defines its
will occur most frequently, with the important level of risk (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson &
preventive consequences that flow therefrom. Clarke, 1998):
Routine activity theory explains the criminal
event through three essential elements that con- • value, real or symbolic, from the perspective
verge in space and time in the course of daily of the offender;
 R OUTINE A CTIVITY THEORY 3

• inertia, referring to size, weight, and shape, area had no significant effect on criminal activity
or the physical aspects of the person or good in the area (Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, & Brown,
that act as obstacles or impediments to the 1974). Others who must be considered capable
offender seeing it as suitable; guardians, and who may be even more important
• visibility, or exposure of targets to offenders, for the prevention of crime, are the occupant of
the attribute that marks the person or the a house, a brother, a friend, or a passer-by – in
good for the attack; general, any person who in the performance of
• access, referring to the design of the site and his or her daily activities can, through presence
the placement of the object that increases the or activity, protect him- or herself, protect others,
risk of attack or makes it easier to carry out. or protect his or her own or others’ property.
The concept of the capable guardian, present
Later developments modified the VIVA con- or absent, has been subject to updates practically
cept, already described somewhat superficially since its initial formulation. Its very definition
in the first paper by Cohen and Felson (1979), has been debated and reformulated by Felson
which could be applied to any type of target, himself, as well as by other researchers. For
whether material or personal. Consistent with example, Hollis-Peel et al., in a literature review
their ecological perspective, the authors focused of the guardian figure in routine activity theory,
at first on the relationship of the target to space have defined guardianship as “the physical or
and time, without paying much attention to the symbolic presence of an individual (or group
motives that led the offender to select one target of individuals) that acts (either intentionally or
or another and independently of whether the unintentionally) to deter a potential criminal
target was material or not. Once the theory had event” (Hollis-Peel, Reynald, van Bavel, Elffers, &
been developed and complemented by others Welsh, 2011, p. 54), a definition that includes ele-
such as “rational choice,” sufficiently distant from ments that they view as insufficiently specified in
theories of criminality and supported by a wide the original article by Cohen and Felson (1979) as
body of empirical research, later formulations well as later works. One example is closed-circuit
took up new concepts such as Clarke’s “hot prod- television (CCTV), which is operated by people
ucts” (1999), which focused specifically on the whose presence at the crime site is not physical
most attractive objects to thieves. By means of the (Hollis-Peel et al., 2011). Felson himself, in an
acronym CRAVED, Clarke describes those prod- effort to tie his theory to Hirschi’s social control
ucts that are stolen with the greatest frequency theory (1969), refines the figure of the guardian,
as concealable, removable, available, valuable, distinguishing the “intimate handler” from the
enjoyable, and disposable. “place manager” (Felson, 1995). The first may be
The third and final element described in the a parent or friend who tries, through disapproval
theory is the absence of a capable guardian, of the potential offender’s behavior, to prevent
someone who can intervene to stop or impede a actions that violate the rules. The place manager,
crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979). A guardian capa- the second aspect of the guardian, refers to those
ble of preventing crime is one in whose presence individuals who have a supervisory responsibility
the crime is not committed, and whose absence in particular places, for example, doormen, bus
makes it more probable (Felson, 1995). This drivers, etc. Thus, in developing the concept of
definition includes anyone who moves through the guardian, Felson takes the four elements of
an area or who functions as a guard of persons Hirschi’s theory (1969), attachment, commit-
or property, although the concept of guardian ment, involvement, and belief, and condenses
should not be restricted to or be confused with them into one, “handle.” In probing the idea that
police or security guards. They are obviously someone could dissuade an offender by means
capable guardians, and in fact they are usually of his presence in a place, or that a person could
absent when a crime occurs (Felson & Boba, discourage a possible offender because of his
2010), as demonstrated in the classic Kansas City relationship with him, Felson is consistent with
Preventive Patrol Experiment, which tested the the idea of social control and drives home the
effectiveness of random patrols and found that idea that control is a critical element in crime rate
an increase from normal patrol levels in a given trends (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
4 R OUTINE A CTIVITY THEORY

On the basis of the three elements initially pro- are ineffective or their actions are occasionally
posed by Cohen and Felson (1979) – offender, mistaken, develop the idea of what they call
target, and guardian – and the later incorporation “super controllers,” that is, people, organizations,
of the intimate handler, Eck developed what is and institutions that provide incentives for con-
known as the crime triangle, which distinguishes trollers to prevent or facilitate crime and that,
the elements necessary for a crime to occur from without directly influencing its elements, may
other elements, called controllers, that have the do so indirectly and incentivize prevention. In
potential to prevent it (Eck, 1994). Offender, this extension of the crime triangle, they add
target, and place, located in the inner triangle, a third set of elements grouped around three
are supervised by controllers, located in the outer categories (formal, diffuse, and personal) and 10
triangle, which can reduce the probability of a types (organizational, contractual, financial, reg-
crime event by controlling each of these three ulatory, courts, political, market, media, group,
elements. Thus, the handlers are those persons and family).
with whom the offender has an emotional rela- The focus of routine activities has its roots
tionship, whether through family, friendship, in Amos Hawley’s human ecology theory of
religion, respect, or others. Their objective is to community structure (1950). Although spatial
keep the potential offender away from problems. variations in crime rates had already been stud-
On the other hand, managers are owners of the ied by authors such as Guerry or Quètelet, the
place or their agents – doormen, store employ- research had rarely considered the temporal
ees, waiters, or others who endeavor to prevent interdependence of crime with place and human
problems in the place. Finally, guardians seek to activities. In their early works, Cohen and Felson
protect the target; they are not only police and focused their attention on patterns of human
security guards, but, to a greater extent, owners activity based on the teachings of Hawley, for
who guard their own properties. whom community is not merely a territorial
Exploring these concepts, Felson (1995) rea- unit, but is instead a symbiotic organization of
soned that the probability that the guardian, the human activities that take place in space and time
handler, or the place manager may be successful (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Thus, rhythm, tempo,
should be considered in relation to his or her and timing constitute the three elements in which
degree of responsibility. He establishes four dif- the organization of time is broken down, and
ferent levels: personal, such as owners, family, which must be studied in order to understand
and friends; assigned, such as employees who society.
have been assigned specific responsibilities for Although its foundation is in human ecology,
looking after a place; diffuse, such as employees routine activity theory presents many points of
with generic responsibilities; and general, the contact with, and has been influenced by, other
responsibility of any person. He constructs a 4 × criminological theories and approaches that
3 grid with 12 cells, with levels of responsibility in arose in the 1970s in response to the failure of
the rows and crime elements and their respective many intervention programs that conceived of
controllers in the columns. Accordingly, we can the criminal as a being who should be treated
analyze the probability of a controller’s success from a medical or psychological perspective for
upon a given element, descending according to his or her individual dispositions or pathologies.
the level of responsibility. Taking as an example On the contrary, approaches such as rational
an object watched over by a guardian, such as a choice operate from a pragmatic perspective of
handbag: if the person watching it is the owner, intervention in situational factors and criminal
the risk of it being stolen is low; if it is a security opportunities. The origin of this perspective may
guard, the risk will still be low but not as low as if be found in the works of Cornish and Clarke
it were the owner; if it is an employee with other (1986), which overlap with Felson’s approach in
duties, the risk will be greater; and finally, if it is their starting point (rational decision) and in
a person with no relationship to the handbag’s placing the emphasis in crime prevention and
owner, the risk will increase. explanation not only on the criminal, but also on
For their part, Sampson, Eck, and Dunham the environment in which he or she acts. Rational
(2010), in analyzing the reasons why controllers choice proposes that offenders’ behavior seeks
 R OUTINE A CTIVITY THEORY 5

to obtain a benefit, and that they make their activity theory is precisely that opportunities
decisions on the basis of a judgment made after are not uniformly distributed in society, nor are
estimating their opportunities to commit a crime they infinite. Instead, there is a limited number
successfully, the risk of being caught, and the of available targets that the criminal may find
benefits they hope to obtain. This cost–benefit attractive (Tillyer & Eck, 2009).
analysis is in reality a process made up of two Finally, crime pattern theory highlights the
decisions, one of involvement and one of event: spatial ties connecting crime, targets, and pat-
the first refers to a disposition to commit crimes, terns of movement of offenders whose routine
that is, the individual evaluates the different activities occur in places and times in which
options before him in order to achieve his or her there is a greater probability of carrying out illicit
objectives, whether legal or illegal, and ultimately acts. Offenders commit their crimes near the
chooses to begin offending and either continue or areas where they spend the most time (home,
not; the second refers to the specific crime, which work, school, shopping, and entertainment) and
is influenced by situational factors. However, a around the routes that connect them. Awareness
rational decision does not mean that the criminal of the space around them is determined by activ-
has made a cold, dispassionate calculus of every ities undertaken in the past and conditions the
option and consequence and that the criminal is placement of their future activities. If we want to
infallible in his or her perceptions and evalua- understand the spatiotemporal distribution pat-
tions; like all human decisions, they are limited terns of crime, we must, therefore understand the
by the many variables that influence them and of patterns of daily life and movements of criminals.
which the offender may or may not be aware. Over the years, the theory has seen many
From the beginning, the approach of Cohen applications and developments. Given its strong
and Felson has been consistent with the idea pragmatic leaning, it is focused principally on
of a rational criminal who takes advantage of preventing crime by reducing opportunities. In
opportunities. In this sense, the topic of opportu- this vein, and based on the perspective of rational
nity plays a relevant role in the focus on routine choice and the idea of the controller introduced
activities as well as for the perspective of rational by routine activity theory, the theory of situa-
choice. One of the first precedents of the opportu- tional crime prevention has emerged, focused
nity paradigm, though limited to the victim’s role, on altering the structures of opportunity of a
was Hindelang’s lifestyle theory (1976), whose specific crime by means of different techniques
central idea is that certain lifestyles favor vic- with the goal of increasing effort, increasing risks,
timization because they offer more opportunities reducing benefits, and removing excuses.
for it. For its part, the work of Mayhew et al. in In addition, to explain the distribution of crime
London, Crime as opportunity (Mayhew, Clarke, in space, in relation to routine activity theory,
Sturman, & Hough, 1976), is considered one other researchers have analyzed places in which
of the great milestones of opportunity theories. crimes occur, looking for differences among
Although it is contemporary with the work of countries or cities or showing concentrations in
Cohen and Felson (1979), the British theory given areas; for example, Sherman, Gartin, and
should be considered independent of the devel- Buerger (1989) carried out a study in the city of
opment of routine activity theory, given that there Minneapolis in which they found that 50% of
were no references at the time to research from calls to police came from 3% of urban areas, while
the other side of the Atlantic, as Tilley (2009) has robberies were concentrated in 3.6% of the city.
pointed out. Routine activity theory suggests that In the same vein, this theory has been used to
crime rates may rise or fall without any change predict victimization as well as the characteristics
in the number of criminals. In fact, the rise in and behaviors of victims.
availability of suitable targets or the diminished Finally, the theory has been widely used to
effectiveness of guardians, or changes in society’s study, among other things, sexual crimes (e.g.,
routine activities, may increase the probability Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001), robbery (e.g.,
that these elements converge in space and time Tseloni, Wittebrood, Farrell, & Pease, 2004),
and therefore increase opportunities for crime. and more recently cybercrime; see, for example,
One of the other most powerful ideas in routine the work of Miró (2011), who has described
6 R OUTINE A CTIVITY THEORY

the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of event. Last, this focus has been criticized from
cyberspace and considers whether it provides a a moral perspective by critics who have pointed
different environment of criminal opportunity. out that the theory is easily adapted to social and
The principal arguments used in criticism of economic policies that exclude entire groups of
routine activity theory question its efficacy, its people, and that it is aligned with “zero tolerance”
moral and political legitimacy, and its tendency police policies associated with the repression of
to blame the victim. These attacks, which flow minor crimes (Garland, 1999).
primarily from a group of authors linked to Routine activity theory emerged as a deliber-
traditional criminology, respond for their part ately simple explanation for changes in violent
to criticisms that, in turn, theories of crime in crime trends, prompted by variations in patterns
general and routine activity theory in particular of daily activity, which may contribute to greater
direct toward the postulates of theories of crim- enjoyment of modern life, but may also encour-
inality and the preventive models they propose age the commission of crimes. It differs from
(Clarke & Felson, 1993; Cohen & Felson, 1979; criminological theories centered on the offender’s
Felson, 2008). motivations in that it places emphasis on crime
In relation to its efficacy, the principal reproach as an event that occurs in a concrete place at a
made of the theory is that measures introduced specific time, and in so doing offers, through an
have no real effect in reducing crime, as what attempt at conceptualization separate from the
really results is a displacement – of the time, three elements of crime and their corresponding
place, target, method, or form of the crime. controllers, a powerful tool for crime analysis and
Nevertheless, the rationality and opportunity prevention.
components of the theory have been subject to Through the years routine activity theory
more criticism by some authors. Critics have has had a significant impact on criminology
also argued that the theory’s basis in the idea and has received important empirical support.
of the rational decision makes it only applica- Along with rational choice and crime pattern
ble to minor crimes with a smaller emotional approaches, it maintains a close relationship with
component, and never to violent crimes (Akers, crime analysis and prevention, and has been
1998). In connection with opportunity, it has applied to strategies such as situational preven-
been pointed out that routine activity theory and tion or problem-oriented policing and problem
other crime theories do not fully explain whether analysis with a significant degree of effectiveness.
places can alter their capacity to cause crime or Although there have been important criticisms
merely serve as a pole of attraction for crimes that of its ethical and methodological underpinnings,
would have occurred regardless. the majority of critics articulate its limitations
Finally, routine activity theory has received and risks but are unable to deny its capacity to
its most severe criticism in the area of moral express and explain the need to look at crime, in
legitimacy. Its detractors have maintained that order to prevent it, by paying attention to the way
the focus on routine activities has shown a com- in which daily life unfolds in different places.
plete lack of interest in or has directly avoided
the offender, thus forgetting the etiology of the SEE ALSO: Differential Association Theory;
problem. In this sense the theory, although it General Strain Theory; Labeling Theory; Theories
begins from the premise of the existence of a of Juvenile Delinquency.
“motivated offender,” has not defined its meaning
and has therefore been unable to answer the
References
questions “Who are motivated offenders?” “What
characteristics do they have?” and “Why are
some individuals more motivated than others to Akers, R. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A
general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: North-
commit crimes?” (Akers, 1997). Also considering
eastern University Press.
the problem of motivation, other authors believe Clarke, R. V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding, antic-
that from an analytic point of view motivation ipating and reducing demand for stolen goods (Paper
cannot be separated from opportunity, as both 112), B. Webb (Ed.). London: Home Office, Research
elements are merely descriptions of the criminal Development and Statistics Directorate.
 R OUTINE A CTIVITY THEORY 7

Clarke, R. V., & Felson M. (Eds.). (1993). Routine activ- Hollis-Peel, M. E., Reynald, D. M., van Bavel, M., Elffers,
ity and rational choice. Advances in criminological the- H., & Welsh, B. C. (2011). Guardianship for crime
ory, Vol 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime,
Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime Law and Social Change, 56(1), 53–70.
rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Kelling, G., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. (1974).
Sociological Review, 44, 588–608. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A sum-
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (1986). The mary report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on Mayhew, P., Clarke, R., Sturman, A., and Hough, M.
offending. New York: Springer. (1976). Crime as opportunity (Home Office Research
Eck, J. E. (1994). Drug markets and drug places: A Study 34). London.
case–control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug Miró, F. (2011). La oportunidad criminal en el ciberes-
dealing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Univer- pacio. Aplicación y desarrollo de la teoría de las
sity of Maryland, College Park, MD. actividades cotidianas para la prevención del ciber-
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. crimen. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Crimi-
Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime prevention studies: nología, 13-07.
Vol. 4. Crime and place (pp. 53–66). Monsey, NY: Sampson, R., Eck, J. E., & Dunham, J. (2010). Super
Criminal Justice Press. controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity
Felson, M. (2008). Routine activity approach. In explanation of crime prevention success and failure.
R. Worley & L. Mazerolle (Eds.), Environmental Security Journal, 23(1), 37–51.
criminology and crime analysis (pp. 70–77). Cul- Shaw, C. R., Zorbaugh, F. M., McKay, H. D., & Cottrell,
lompton, UK: Willan. L. S. (1929). Delinquency areas. A study of the geo-
Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life graphic distributions of school truants, juvenile delin-
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. quents, and adult offenders in Chicago. Chicago: Uni-
Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. (1998). Opportunity makes versity of Chicago Press.
the thief. Practical theory for crime prevention (Police Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989).
Research Series, Paper 98). London: Home Office, Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and
Policing and Reducing Crime Unit. the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–56.
Felson, M., & Cohen, L. E. (1980). Human ecology and Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E., (2001). Lifestyle fac-
crime: A routine activity approach. Human Ecology, tors associated with the sexual assault of men: A
8(4), 389–405. routine activity theory analysis. The Journal of Men’s
Garland, D. (1999). Penal modernism and postmod- Studies, 9(2), 153–182.
ernism. In R. Mathews (Ed.), Imprisonment (pp. Tilley, N. (2009). Crime prevention. Cullompton, UK:
511–539). Dartmouth: Ashgate. Willan.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. A. (1990). A general Tillyer, M. S., & Eck, J. E. (2009). Routine activities. In
theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University J. M. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A refer-
Press. ence handbook (pp. 279–287). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Hawley, A. (1950). Human ecology: A theory of commu- Sage.
nity structure. New York: Ronald. Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., & Pease, K.
Hindelang, M. J. (1976). Criminal victimization in eight (2004). Burglary victimization in England and Wales,
American cities: A descriptive analysis of common theft the United States and the Netherlands: A cross-
and assault. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. national comparative test of routine activities and
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: lifestyle theories. British Journal of Criminology,
University of California Press. 44(1), 66–91.

View publication stats