Introduction

On examining the spatial and geographical distribution of crime incidence, it is evident that most are not distributed uniformly, but are concentrated in specific areas and buildings or against specific victims. Such crime concentration patterns indirectly show that criminals do not select crime targets arbitrarily but do so through a rational and reasonable target selection process (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1978; Taylor, 1987).

Cornish and Clarke (1986) insisted that criminals commit crimes not because of the consequence of irresistible force such as genetic or socio-economic factors, but because of the consequence of rational choice they make on the criminal situation. They criticized the tendency of traditional criminlogy to "overpathologize" offenders and to focus on their supposedly abnormal personality, deviant character, or irrational mode of thinking, discounting "the fact that most criminal behavior is of a mundane, opportunistic, and rational nature, and the vast majority of criminals are normal people driven by the same motives that drive most of us" (Clark and Felson, 1993).

Unlike the dispositional approach in traditional criminology, which defines criminals as a group that differs from the general population and that focuses on the personal characteristics of criminals, such as socio-economic, psychological, and genetic factors, the situational crime prevention approach argues that when a situation provides the opportunity and motivation to commit a crime, there is a likelihood for any person to commit a crime. Therefore the situational crime prevention approach attaches great importance to the role of environmental characteristics that provide opportunities for criminal activities, and to the criminal's perception and decision-making processes related to such environmental characteristics. This approach had its beginnings since the early 1970s, but studies on theories such as rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke, 1986), routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979), and the crime site selection model (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1978) began in earnest from the late 1970s.

Most especially, Brantingham and Brantingham (1993) contributed to the development of a theoretical model of crime site selection. Their model of crime site selection views actual commission of crime as an end result of a multi-staged decision process, which seeks out and identifies a target in time and space. The model also argues that the environment emits many signals or cues about the characteristics of the site, and criminals use these cues to locate and identify easy targets. Criminals are conceived to develop their own template as they learn which cues or clusters of cues are associated with easy targets. Therefore, if a specific building closely matches a criminal's template, then the probability increases for that specific building to become a crime target. The crime concentration pattern for a specific building that was mentioned earlier refers to congruence between a specific building and the criminal's template, and suggests that while slight differences may exist between individual templates, individuals will be fairly consistent in their choice of targets.

Based on these theoretical models, a few empirical studies on residential burglary have tried to identify environmental characteristics that meet a burglar's template of a good target. In his study of 40 convicted burglars, Bennett (1986) argued that a criminal's perception of environmental characteristics can be classified broadly into the three main concepts of risk, ease, and reward factors. Of the three factors, Bennett argued that risk plays the most important role in the target selection process compared with the other two factors. Taylor and Nee (1988) conducted a similar experiment using a simulation that made use of pictures of actual residences, on a group of 15 convicted burglars and a group of 15 members of the public. The results of their analysis show that the situational cues that influence the decision-making processes of residential burglars when selecting their targets are broadly divided into the four categories of layout cues, wealth cues, occupancy cues, and security cues. When comparing the "non-burglar" and burglar group, differences did exist in target searching methods, but the two groups appeared to use almost identical environmental cues in their decision-making process for target selection. Finally, MacDonald and Gifford (1989) asked 43 convicted burglars to sort 50 photographs of single-family dwellings along a 7-point scale of vulnerability (likelihood of being a burglary target), and found that environmental cues about surveillability played the most important role, but environmental cues about territorial concern did not demonstrate any significant effects.

To some extent, these research efforts have unveiled a burglar's target selection process and identified environmental characteristics that constitute the burglar's template. However, as some researchers (Bennett and Wright, 1984; Brantingham and Brantingham, 1993; Lee and Kim, 2000) mentioned, there exist some limitations in the research methods. And these limitations not only have obscured the findings and resulted in validity problem, but also fundamentally restrain research efforts that directly examine burglars' perception.

While research efforts to unveil the burglars' target selection process and the template they use have continued for more than two decades, there exist only a handful of studies (Bennett, 1986; Rengert and Wasilchick, 1988; Taylor and Nee, 1988; MacDonald and Gifford, 1989) that directly examine burglars' perception. Among such studies, Rengert and Wasilchick used interviews of a small group of convicted burglars, to qualitatively examine the entry route and considerations at the time of entry, for the residences that were broken into. The other three studies were carried out on groups of 15–40 convicted burglars each, using simulations featuring pictures, slides, or videotapes of actual residential environments. Such simulation methods save time and expenses when compared with methods in which crime sites are visited and examined in person, together with the burglar, and they also help resolve the legal and ethical problems that arise from the possibility of crime scene investigation data being used in actual crimes later. However, simulation methods used in existing research have also posed the following problems: (1) since they are simulations (pictures, slides, videotapes) of actual residential environments, it is difficult to manipulate a variety of research variables to test individual effects and interactional effects and (2) simulation methods that use pictures, slides, and videotapes only provide one-way information within a very limited range, and are therefore unable to reflect properly the interactive two-way searching processes used by burglars. In a real world of residential burglary, burglars do not subjectively receive information. They actively explore specific dwelling units more closely when they find some vulnerable cues in the course of the searching process, and sometimes involve more active behavior (such as breaking street lights) to create a more supportive environment for burglary.

This study addresses such problems, and by conducting experiments using simulation methods that improve upon the validity aspects of existing simulation methods, it attempts to identify the environmental characteristics that constitute burglars' templates. More specifically, this study aims to elucidate which environmental characteristics play a facilitating role in the target selection process and which play an inhibiting role. Another goal of this study is to test Brantingham and Brantingham's (1978) argument that individual similarities can be found in templates, by comparing "potential burglars" from two distinct cultures. To examine the research questions mentioned above, this study conducted experiments using a simulation model of the burglars' target searching process.

Methods

Simulation model

To identify environmental characteristics that affect a burglar's template of good targets and to understand whether there are any similarities between culture groups, a walk-through simulation model that simulates the burglar's target searching process was used in this experiment.

First, the walk-through simulation model developed for this study is not an extant building environment, but an artificially created, imaginary environment. An imaginary environment allows the researcher various combinations of different research variables, and thus offers the advantage of being able to examine the effect of research variables of interest, while partially controlling for extraneous variables. Furthermore, since the investigation can take place in the lab, without the need to visit the actual environment, time and expenses are saved. The use of imaginary environments provides freedom from legal and ethical problems that can potentially arise from on-site investigations.

Secondly, an interactive simulation model was developed and used, albeit in a limited capacity. The animated simulation model for the search process has been developed to be as similar as possible to a burglar's actual search process in selecting target, and it shows in animation form the sequential process (Figure 1) of observing the dwelling units within each block, while moving at walking speed, from a human eye level viewpoint. The simulation model enables subjects not only to browse an experimental neighborhood, but also to examine specific dwelling units closely. To simulate the target searching process of burglars in the real world, involving an in-depth and close examination of the dwelling units that attract burglars' attention, the model was constructed to allow subjects to stop the walk-through animation and view some close-up pictures (Figure 2) of the dwelling units from different directions whenever they wanted a closer examination of particular dwelling units. Therefore, although selecting and examining applicable dwelling units from all directions or distances desired by the experimental subjects was not possible in all cases because of practical limitations such as technical difficulties and high expenses, by constructing an interactive model that allowed, within a limited range, selection of a more detailed examination of desired dwelling units, the validity problem of existing simulation methods was improved upon greatly.

Figure 1.

Sequential views of target searching in the simulation model.

Full figure and legend (102K)

Figure 2.

An example of still images for closer observation.

Full figure and legend (70K)

Thirdly, the simulation model is divided into the following two stages: a block searching model composed of 12 blocks, and an individual dwelling units searching model made up of 109 dwelling units. The model was separated into these two different stages because a burglar goes through different stages in the process of selecting a target, from selection of a broad area, to selection of a block, and finally to selection of individual dwelling units, and because it seemed that the variables considered at each stage might be different. Each of 12 blocks was arranged to test the hypothesis in relation to the variables that are assumed to affect a burglar's block selection, such as proximity to the park, proximity to the major arteries, and street configuration. Most of the blocks consisted of 10 dwelling units while two blocks have only five dwelling units because one side of the block was facing the park. One block was designed to have nine dwelling units and one commercial facility to test the effect of a commercial facility in burglars' decision making. Each of 109 dwelling units was constructed by combining various environmental features to test the hypothesis in relation to the number of variables that are assumed to affect a burglar's dwelling selection.

Measures

In this study, based on a review of existing literature, environmental characteristics that were deemed to be related to burglars' target selection were selected as variables. The research variables were classified broadly into the three categories of risk factors, ease factors, and reward factors.

Risk factors refer to variables that increase or decrease the likelihood of being detected, deterred, or apprehended during residential burglary. Risk factors include variables such as amount of cover offered by the dwelling, landscape, or immediate environment, proximity of neighboring dwellings to the building being assessed, traffic volume around the site, frequency of police patrol, etc. Ease factors refer to variables that are related to the ease of entry and escape, that is, height of fence, location and size of windows, existence of window gratings, number of escape routes provided by the street, existence of escape routes such as a back alley, vacant lots, or a park, and a building configuration that allows burglars to easily climb up. Reward factors refer to variables that are related to possible economic gains as a result of burglary such as signs of wealth that can be judged by size, material, and decorations of a building and its immediate environment.

Research variables (Table 1) are all measured through two types of situations: situations that are favorable (-1) to burglary and situations that are unfavorable (+1) to burglary (Figure 3). Four variables (building configuration, building color, symbols of wealth, and surveillability) that were difficult to measure using objective criteria were evaluated by three experts. Additionally, the probability of residential burglary victimization, which is a dependent variable, was measured using the percentage value (%) of an applicable dwelling unit's actual frequency of selection, out of the total frequency possible for a response, and the weights for cases when selected as rank 1 and cases when selected as rank 2 were assigned differential grades.

Figure 3.

Examples of dwellings constructed in the simulation model.

Full figure and legend (90K)

Table 1 - Operational definitions of research variables.

Full table

Subjects and procedure

The subjects of the experiment consisted of 80 college students in K University in Seoul, Korea, and 40 college students in W University in Wisconsin, USA, who volunteered to participate in the experiments.

At the first stage of the experiment, the bird's-eye view perspective, which shows the layout of experimental blocks, was presented to the subjects, and then subjects experienced a walk-through animation of 12 blocks. Subjects were then asked to select three blocks in order of suitability for committing burglary, and briefly describe why they thought so.

At the second stage of the experiment, each subject viewed walk-through animations of randomly assigned six blocks. Subjects were allowed to stop the animations whenever they wanted closer images of a particular dwelling, and they were able to see close-up still images of that particular dwelling from two different directions by controlling the mouse. After experiencing a walk-through animation of each block, subjects were asked to select two dwelling units from each block experienced in order of suitability for committing burglary, and briefly describe why they thought so. Subjects were asked to select only one dwelling unit from block 9 and block 10 to make the probability of selection equal with that of other blocks, because these two blocks consisted of five dwelling units while other blocks consisted of ten dwelling units.

RESULTS

Block characteristics

As shown in Table 2, it appeared that for both the US and Korean subject groups, block 11 (31.48%vs 19.86%) showed the highest probability of victimization. The next highest victimization probabilities were seen in blocks 8, 9, and 12 (16.67, 12.96, 11.11%) in the US group, and in blocks 9, 10, and 8 (15.0, 11.53, 10.07%) in the Korean group. So while the orders showed slight differences, the two groups showed similar patterns in terms of victimization probabilities. In particular, it was found that blocks close to parks occupied ranks 1–5 in the list of blocks with the highest probabilities of victimization for both subject groups. Thus it appeared that blocks close to parks were seen as good crime targets. In contrast, blocks with the lowest probabilities of victimization were block 6 (0.93%) in the US group, and block 7 (1.81%) in the Korean group, indicating that blocks situated in the core of neighborhoods were not considered easy targets.

Table 2 - Probabilities of block burglary victimization.

Full table

When the 12 blocks were categorized according to whether they were near major arteries, in the core of neighborhood, or close to parks, and the average values for probability of burglary victimization were compared, in both the US and Korean groups, blocks adjacent to parks showed the highest probabilities of victimization (15.83%vs 12.88%). However, whereas in the US group, blocks near arteries had the second highest probability of victimization (average 3.70%), and blocks in the core of neighborhoods were judged to be the safest blocks (average 1.46%), the Korean group deemed blocks near arteries to be the safest blocks (average 4.45%).

Further analysis of the reasons (Table 3) given for selecting blocks as burglary targets showed that response rates related to risk factors (56.47% for the Korean group, 63.43% for the US group) were comparatively higher than response rates for ease factors (43.24% for Korean group, 36.57% for the US group). Therefore, it appeared that during block selection, risk-related factors were much more important considerations than ease factors or reward factors (Figure 4). Especially in the case of US subjects, risk factor-related responses showed an almost two-fold rate compared to ease factor-related responses. In contrast, in terms of ease factors the Korean group showed a 43.24% rate while the US group showed a 36.57% rate, indicating that Korean subjects gave more importance to ease factors. A key difference was that whereas the US group considered ease of entry and escape through streets (25.71%) more important than ease of entry and escape due to proximity to open spaces such as parks or vacant lots (10.29%), the Korean group considered ease of entry and escape due to proximity to open spaces (24.41%) more important than ease of entry and escape due to proximity of streets (18.24%). Such a difference may originate in modus operandi differences, where in the US the rate of burglaries using vehicles is relatively higher. On the other hand, the reward factor appeared to have almost no effect on the block selection process in both groups.

Figure 4.

Comparison of reasons for selecting blocks between US and Korean groups.

Full figure and legend (71K)

Table 3 - Reasons for selecting blocks as targets.

Full table

The t-test was used to analyze whether significant differences existed between the probability of burglary victimization for situations unfavorable to burglary and situations favorable to burglary. Looking at the results (Table 4), for both the Korean and US groups, blocks close to parks showed higher probabilities of burglary victimization than blocks not close to parks (14.12%vs 4.97% in the Korean group; 17.01%vs 3.99% in the US group), and blocks removed from major arteries showed higher probabilities than blocks situated near major arteries (12.93%vs 4.50% in the Korean group; 15.83%vs 2.98% in the US group). Additionally, blocks with few connecting streets showed higher probabilities of victimization than blocks with many connecting streets (10.64%vs 6.14% in the Korean group, 13.61%vs 4.56% in the US group).

Table 4 - t-test results for the probability of burglary victimization according to block characteristics.

Full table

Findings from existing literature on the relationship between the probability of burglary victimization and block characteristics such as accessibility (number of connecting streets) and proximity to parks or major arteries have shown inconsistent results. Some researchers (Molumby, 1976; Dietrick, 1977; Lim and Park, 1992) argued that blocks close to open spaces or vacant lots show higher crime rates for reasons such as ease of escape, provision of hiding space, absence of surveillance by neighbors, and unclear territorial hierarchy. However, contrary to these findings, some other studies (Luedtke et al., 1970; Bevis and Nutter, 1977) reported that blocks with many connecting streets or blocks that are situated close to major arteries have lower victimization rates because of the abundant surveillance opportunities provided by traffic. On the other hand, some studies (William Brill Associates, 1977; Dietrick, 1977; Hunter and Baumer, 1982) that examined the relationship between traffic volume and crime rate reported that heavy traffic volume tended to increase the crime rate, by facilitating anonymity. Combined together, these findings imply that there may exist a U-shape type of relationship between traffic volume and crime rates. Sporadic traffic volume may result in a high crime rate because of lack of natural surveillance, while overly heavy traffic volume also results in a high crime rate because of anonymity provided by excessive traffic.

Therefore the findings of this study that burglary victimization is low in blocks that have many connecting streets or in blocks that are situated close to major arteries need to be interpreted with great caution. As mentioned earlier, a U-shape type of relationship may exist between traffic volume and probability of burglary victimization. But since the traffic volume simulated in the model used in this study was only light or moderate, the possibility exists that the effect of traffic volume was not properly examined.

Individual dwelling characteristics

Table 5 summarizes the subjects' self-reported reasons for selecting target dwelling units. Just as the risk factors appeared more important than ease factors in the decision-making process for target block selection, both groups place more emphasis on the risk factors than on the ease factors (51.65%vs 44.19% for the Korean group; 61.73%vs 35.69% for the US group) in the selection of the target dwelling unit. However, more balanced consideration is given to both risk and ease factors in target dwelling unit selection than in target block selection. This appears to be because unlike in the block selection stage, where immediate entry routes do not need to be considered, in the stage of selecting individual dwellings, whether or not routes exist for easy intrusion and escape must be considered simultaneously, together with considerations of the risks of being detected or arrested. The risk factors considered at the stage of dwelling unit selection are mostly related to surveillance by neighbors, which was an important element taken up mostly by the existence of concealed spaces due to dense gardening landscape or high fences. For the Korean subjects, the blocking off of surveillance by high fences was the most important reason for selecting a target dwelling unit (13.49%), but US subjects felt that blocking off of surveillance by dense gardening landscape was the most important reason (28.96%).

Table 5 - Reasons for selecting dwelling units as targets.

Full table

While the Korean group showed a balanced consideration of risk and ease factors, the US group placed much more emphasis on risk factors (61.73%) than on ease factors (35.69%) in target dwelling unit selection (Figure 5). The reason why the risk factor ratio appears noticeably higher in the US group, seems to be because residential houses in Korea are mostly surrounded by high fences, which serve to block surveillance from nearby houses or from the streets, and thus decrease risk factors. On the other hand, high fences serve to make entry more difficult. In the US however, residential culture is such that fences are absent or low, so surveillance by neighbors or passersby in the streets (risk factors) is relied upon more heavily. Since there is much less difficulty of entry due to high fence (ease factor), consideration of the ease factor appears to be relatively low.

Figure 5.

Comparison of reasons for selecting dwelling units between US and Korean groups.

Full figure and legend (89K)

The t-test was also carried out to examine whether significant differences in the probability of burglary victimization existed between dwelling units that have unfavorable characteristics to burglary and units with favorable characteristics (Table 6). After dividing into the two groups of situations unfavorable to burglary and situations favorable to burglary, according to each variable, and comparing probabilities of burglary victimization, dwelling unit configuration was the factor that showed the most noticeable changes in both US and Korean groups. Especially in the case of the Korean group, it appeared that houses with complex configurations (18.08%) had probabilities of burglary victimization that were almost twice as high compared to those of units with simple configurations (9.61%), and the difference was statistically significant. On examining the specific reasons for selection, in the case of units with excessively complicated configurations, ease factor-related responses, which said structures facilitating climbing, such as terraces and railings, were readily available, making entry easier, were 12.63%, and risk factor-related responses, which said that building configurations served as places to hide, therefore allowing avoidance of surveillance detection, made up 6.89%. Therefore, it may be concluded that complicated building configurations can operate on aspects of both ease and risk, but that the ease factor is considered first. Such a tendency appeared almost identically in the US subjects as well; hence it seems that no particular difference exists between the Korean and the US groups.

Table 6 - t-test results for the probability of burglary victimization according to dwelling unit characteristics.

Full table

In contrast, the factors that showed statistically significant differences were transparency of the fence in Korea, and concealments provided by landscape in the US. In the Korean group, houses with fences that did not allow passersby or neighbors to look in showed higher probabilities of burglary victimization than houses with fences that did not afford such privacy (13.46%vs 8.97%). In the US group, houses with dense landscape vegetation that provided hideaway places showed higher probabilities of victimization (13.76%) than houses without such dense vegetation (7.67%).

DISCUSSION

By using improved methods of simulation for burglars' target selection processes, this study attempted to identify the environmental characteristics that make up the template that burglars use in their target selection process, and examine whether similarities exist between different cultural groups. To summarize, the templates that these two groups used in their block selection processes and individual dwelling unit selection processes had very similar characteristics, but the Korean and US groups did show slight differences in a few variables due to their cultural differences.

For the environmental characteristics that make up the template, proximity to major arteries was discovered to be an important common factor for both experimental groups in the block selection stage, and in the stage of selecting individual dwelling units, concealments by landscape and building configuration were found to be the statistically significant factors.

• However, the following differences also existed between the two experimental groups. In the US, where rates of burglaries using automobiles are relatively high, ease of escape due to proximity to roads, etc. was considered important. In contrast, the Korean group considered ease of escape due to proximity to parks or vacant lots more important.
• According to Korean residential culture, most houses are surrounded by high fences. Transparency of the fence, which enables surveillance from neighboring houses or from passersby in the streets, correspondingly operated as an important inhibiting factor in the Korean group. In contrast, in the US, where fences are less common, clearing of landscape vegetation such as trees or bushes so that these elements did not block external views of the house functioned as an important inhibitor.
• Finally, compared to the Korean group, which gave a balanced consideration to ease factors and risk factors, the US group gave relatively more important consideration to risk factors.

Nevertheless, despite such differences, the general elements of the templates, and the overall tendency to consider risk factors and ease factors in the selection process for targets, appeared to be almost identical.

Although many improvements have been made to the simulation model by using animations, compared to previous simulation methods that use pictures, slides, and videotapes, many limitations still exist, which need to be further improved upon. First, a perfect interactive search process has not yet been created, due to technical problems and excessive expenses involved in creating the model. In other words, signs of occupancy (signs indicating that people are at home, such as TV sounds and parked cars, etc.), which could be the most important variable among the risk factors, or street traffic volume due to pedestrians and vehicles etc. are yet to be simulated. Additionally, the simulation model simulates daytime conditions, and therefore one limitation of this study is that its results cannot be generalized to all situations.

Furthermore, a practical limitation that the sample numbers for the US and Korean subjects, at 40 and 80 respectively, were different could also be pointed out as a limitation of this study. The procedures and environments for all experiments were kept as similar as possible, but the fact that a sufficient number of experiment participants could not be obtained during the given research period operated as a problem during analysis, and improvements need to be made on these limitations in follow-up studies in the future.

References

1. Bennett, T. (1986). Burglars Choice of Targets. In Heal, K. and Laycock, G. (eds) Situational Crime Prevention: From Theory into Practice. London: HMSO, pp 176–192.
2. Bennett, T. and Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender. Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company.
3. Bevis, C. and Nutter, J.B. (1977). Changing Street Layouts to Reduce Residential Burglary. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
4. Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1993). Nodes, Paths and Edges: Considerations on the Complexity of Crime and The Physical Environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 13, pp 3–28. | Article |
5. Brantingham, P.J. and Brantingham, P.L. (1978). A Theoretical Model of Crime Site Selection. In Krohn, M.D. and Akers, D.L. (eds) Crime, Law and Sanctions: Theoretical Perspectives. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications, pp 105–116.
6. Clark, R.V. and Felson, M. (eds) (1993). Routine Activity and Rational Choice. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, p 229.
7. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (eds) (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review. Vol. 44, pp 588–608. | Article |
8. Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (eds) (1986). The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer Verlag.
9. Dietrick, B. (1977). The Environment and Burglary Victimization in a Metropolitan Suburb. Paper Presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.
10. Hunter, A. and Baumer, T.L. (1982). Street Traffic, Social Integration, and Fear of Crime. Sociological Inquiry. Vol. 52, No. 2, pp 122–131. | Article |
11. Lee, K.H. and Kim, J.W. (2000). An Experimental Study on the Environmental Cues which affect Target Searching and Selection Process of Residential Burglars. Journal of Architectural Institute of Korea. Vol. 16, No. 8, pp 83–90.
12. Lim, S.B. and Park, C.S. (1992). The Study on the Planning Criteria for Crime Prevention in Residential Area. Journal of Architectectural Institute of Korea. Vol. 8, No. 10, pp 55–64.
13. Luedtke, G. (1970). Crime and the Physical City: Neighborhood Design Techniques for Crime Reduction. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
14. MacDonald, J.E. and Gifford, R. (1989). Terrotorial Cues and Defensible Space Theory: The Burglar's Point of View. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 9, pp 193–205. | Article |
15. Molumby, T. (1976). Patterns of Crime in a University Housing Project. American Behavioral Scientist. Vol. 20, pp 247–259. | Article |
16. Rengert, G. and Wasilchick, J. (1988). Space, Time and Crime: Ethnographic Insights into Residential Burglary, Final Report, US Department of Justice.
17. Taylor, M. and Nee, C. (1988). The Role of Cues in Simulated Residential Burglary: A Preliminary Investigation. British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 28, No. 3, pp 396–401.
18. Taylor, R. (1987). Toward an Environmental Psychology of Disorder: Delinquency, Crime, and Fear of Crime. In Stokols, D. and Altman, I. (eds) Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
19. William Brill Associates. (1977). Victimization, Fear of Crime, and Altered Behavior: A Profile of the Crime Problem in Capper Dwellings. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.