Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Activity Fields and the Dynamics of Crime

Advancing Knowledge About the Role of the Environment in Crime Causation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our current understanding of the role of the social environment in crime causation is at best rudimentary. Guided by the theoretical framework of Situational Action Theory, and using data from the ESRC financed Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS+), this paper aims to propose how we can better theorise and study the role of the social environment, particularly the person and place interaction, in crime causation. We will introduce, and illustrate the usefulness of, a space–time budget methodology as a means of capturing people’s exposure to settings and describing their activity fields. We will suggest and demonstrate that, combined with a small area community survey and psychometric measures of individual characteristics, a space–time budget is a powerful tool for advancing our knowledge about the role of the social environment, and its interaction with people’s crime propensity, in crime causation. Our unique data allows us to study the convergence in time and space of crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and crime events. As far as we are aware, such an analysis has never before been carried out. The findings show that there are (a) clear associations between young people’s activity fields and their exposure to criminogenic settings, (b) clear associations between their exposure to criminogenic settings and their crime involvement, and, crucially, (c) that the influence of criminogenic exposure depends on a person’s crime propensity. Having a crime-averse morality and strong ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people practically situationally immune to the influences of criminogenic settings, while having a crime-prone morality and poor ability to exercise self-control appears to make young people situationally vulnerable to the influences of criminogenic settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although Routine Activity Theory has become the established label, it should be noted that one of the originators of RAT (Marcus Felson) prefers to call it an approach rather than a theory (Felson 2006).

  2. It is not uncommon for studies to use areas encompassing 5,000–10,000 inhabitants as units of analysis.

  3. For example, in a recent work Felson (2006) defines crime as “any identifiable behavior that an appreciable number of governments has specifically prohibited and formally punished” (pp. 35); he goes on to say that “crime’s comprehensive definition includes past and present crimes and leaves room for future crimes” (pp. 36). In our view this definition does not contribute much towards specifying what it is RAT aims to explain.

  4. Please note that we use the concept of self-control somewhat differently than Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), as a situational concept rather than a personal trait (see Wikström and Treiber 2007).

  5. The concept of behavior-setting was originally proposed by Barker (1968). The concept of setting as employed in SAT is inspired by but not identical to the concept of behavior-setting used by Barker. Taylor (1997) makes a strong theoretical argument for the use of behavior-settings as a unit of analysis when assessing environmental influences on crime and related outcomes.

  6. However, from a developmental perspective, longer periods of exposure to criminogenic settings may enhance a person’s crime propensity just as longer periods of exposure to non-criminogenic settings may reduce a person’s crime propensity (see Wikström and Treiber 2009a, b, pp. 92–93; Wikström 2009).

  7. A random sample of household addresses for each output area was drawn from the electoral register.

  8. It is likely that residents have accurate knowledge about the social conditions of the area immediately surrounding their residence. The extent to which they have such knowledge about the typically much larger geographic areas commonly used in “neighborhood research” is more questionable. Moreover, the larger the area the more likely it is to be heterogeneous in relevant social conditions and therefore that residents’ reports on these conditions will be less uniform (reflecting residents’ differential exposure to parts of the area depending on the location of their residence within the area).

  9. The fact that we have the exact geographic location of respondents’ addresses makes it possible to map their location within output areas and hence confirm that they were generally well spread.

  10. Space–time budget data has been excluded for subjects who spent no time in the study area because they moved permanently, or temporarily, out of the area during the study period (N = 35). For some analyses, those who did not take part in all five waves (N = 23) are also excluded.

  11. We strongly believe that producing high quality data from the space–time budget methodology requires highly qualified and specially trained interviewers.

  12. A small number of participants were unable to complete the spatial dimension of the space–time budget because they have moved outside the study area. For analyses which involve a spatial element (e.g., collective efficacy, entertainment settings) these subjects’ hours are excluded, leaving a total of 329,952 h, and 205,885 h awake.

  13. However, specific analysis of the relationship between propensity and crime shows there is an interaction effect in that self-control only becomes relevant when a person’s (crime-relevant) morality is weak (Wikström and Svensson 2009).

  14. PADS+ includes several morality scales. This particular scale is inspired by a scale used by Rolf Loeber in the Pittsburgh Youth Study.

  15. See Wikström (2009) for details on how this measure was created.

  16. The reason why people are differentially exposed to settings is due to processes of self and social selection, an aspect we will not deal with specifically in this paper but return to exploring in subsequent publications.

  17. Generally, adults are assumed to uphold moral rules defined by law, but this is not always the case. There are even some (albeit rare) instances in which, for example, parents offend alongside their offspring.

  18. For details see Oberwittler and Wikström (2009).

  19. It should be noted that cut-off points are important, as a more liberal operationalization would lead to more acts of crime being defined as having taken place in settings with poor collective efficacy. The cut-off point chosen for this dichotomization is somewhat arbitrary.

  20. It should be noted that our subjects are in the age range of 13–17 so they are not legally allowed to visit pubs and nightclubs (which may not, however, prevent the oldest from being able to frequent such establishments). However, the criminogenic features of settings characterized by public entertainment are not restricted to pub and nightclub venues but may also characterize the surrounding environment, in which young people may take part.

  21. There were less restrictions as to specific types of crime than in the questionnaire. However, all reported crimes, apart from six driving offences, fit into crime categories covered by those included in the questionnaire.

  22. Please note that nine crimes reported were committed outside the study area and hence are not included here.

  23. Please note that these are totally independent sources of data on the young people’s crime involvement and further that the space–time budget only covers a short period each year, which makes it even more remarkable that these data correlate significantly with police recorded crimes.

  24. Lines that leave the map indicate movements to settings outside the study area. Recall that subjects spent only 7% of their time awake in settings outside the study area (see Table 1).

  25. Since home, school, best friends and centre settings may occasionally overlap we have prioritised these in the following order: home, school, best friend and centre setting. Thus, for example, if a subject’s home setting and his or her school setting are in the same output area, any hour spent in this output area will appear in the table as an hour spent at the home setting.

  26. Although we are not particularly concerned with environmental influences on young people’s social and moral development in this paper (we address this in other studies), it is worthwhile to note how much of their time young people spend in home and school locations, and the relevance of this for the potential role of parents and teachers as key influences on young people’s social and moral development.

  27. Brantingham and Brantingham use the concept of ‘activity space’, but it is essentially the same.

  28. This is developmentally very interesting and indicates the value of exploring the relationship between being exposed to criminogenic settings and the development of crime propensity. However, this is not a topic for this paper.

  29. Criminogenic setting exposure variables (2) and (3) are logged because they are highly skewed.

  30. This calculation is based on space–time budget data showing that young people were awake, on average, 15 h a day.

  31. Those with a high crime propensity, on average, commit a crime every 27th day or 13 crimes per year. In this context it is interesting to note that the average annual number of crimes reported over the five studied years in the self-report questionnaire is similar; five per year for all subjects, and 18 for those with a high crime propensity.

  32. The important question of whether repeated exposure to criminogenic settings increases a person’s crime propensity has not been addressed in this paper. This topic will be dealt with in other publications.

  33. During the studied 20 days of the five waves (ages 13–17) only one young person with a low crime propensity committed an act of crime.

  34. Based on income, employment, health, education, skills and training, living environment and health deprivation, disability, barriers to housing and services, and crime.

References

  • Anderson J (1971) Space-time budgets and activity studies in urban geography and planning. Environ Plan A 3:353–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker RG (1968) Ecological psychology: concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite J (1979) Inequality, crime and public policy. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1993) Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In: Clarke RV, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice, advances in criminological theory, vol 5. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham P, Brantingham P (2008) Crime pattern theory. In: Wortley R, Mazzerole L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, Cullompton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bursik RJ Jr (1988) Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: problems and prospects. Criminology 26:519–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke RV, Felson M (1993) Introduction: criminology, routine activity, and rational choice. In: Clarke RV, Felson M (eds) Routine activity and rational choice, advances in criminological theory, vol 5. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activities approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietvorst A (1994) Cultural tourism and time-space behaviour. In: Ashworth G, Larkham P (eds) Building a new heritage: tourism, culture and identity in the New Europe. Routledge, London, pp 69–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE (1995) Examining routine activity theory: a review of two books. Justice Q 12:783–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott DS, Wilson WJ, Huizinga D, Sampson RJ, Elliott A, Rankin B (1996) The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. J Res Crime Delinq 33:389–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington DP (1993) Have any individual, family or neighbourhood influences on offending been demonstrated conclusively? In: Farrington DP, Sampson RJ, Wikström P-OH (eds) Integrating individual and ecological aspects of crime. National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson M (2002) Crime and everyday life, 3rd edn. SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson M (2006) Crime and nature. SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson M, Cohen LE (1980) Human ecology and crime: a routine activity approach. Hum Ecol 8:389–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenell DA (1996) A tourist space-time budget in the Shetland Islands. Ann Tourism Res 23:811–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forer PC, Kivell H (1981) Space-time budgets, public transport, and spatial choice. Environ Plan A 13:497–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Standford

  • Gottfredson DC, McNeil RJ III, Gottfredson GD (1991) Social area influences on delinquency: a multi-level analysis. J Res Crime Delinq 28:197–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasmick H, Tittle C, Bursik R Jr, Arneklev B (1993) Testing the core implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:5–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond JL (1973) Two sources of error in ecological correlation. Am Sociol Rev 38:764–777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson S, Hanson P (1980) Gender and urban activity patterns in Uppsala, Sweden. Geogr Rev 70:291–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janelle DG, Goodchild MF, Klinkenberg B (1988) Space-time diaries and travel characteristics for different levels of respondent aggregation. Environ Plan A 20:891–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarjoura GR, Triplett R (1997) The effects of social area characteristics on the relationship between social class and delinquency. J Crim Justice 25:125–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornhauser RR (1978) The social sources of delinquency: an appraisal of analytic models. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynham DR, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Wikström P-OH, Loeber R, Novak SP (2000) The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poor neighborhoods. J Abnorm Psychol 109:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney JL, Stattin H (2000) Leisure time activities and adolescent anti-social behavior: the role of structure and social context. J Adolesc 23:113–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mey MG, Heide H (1997) Towards spatiotemporal planning: practicable analysis of the day-to-day paths through space and time. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 24:709–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberwittler D, Wikström P-OH (2009) Why small is better. Advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma G (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD (1996) Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Am Sociol Rev 61:635–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland WE, Harvey AS, Lawton MP, McMoll MA (1999) Time use research in the social sciences. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips PD (1980) Characteristics and typology of the journey of crime. In: Georges-Abeyie DE, Harries KD (eds) Crime: a spatial perspective. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2005) Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: a meta-analysis, crime and justice, vol 32. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush SW, Sampson RJ (1999) Ecometrics: toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociol Methodol 29:1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss AJ Jr (1986) Why are communities important in understanding crime? In: Reiss AJ Jr, Tonry M (eds) Communities and crime. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss AJ, Rhodes AL (1961) The distribution of juvenile delinquency in the social class structure. Am Sociol Rev 26:720–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley D (1987) Time and crime: the link between teenager lifestyle and delinquency. J Quant Criminol 3:339–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson WS (1950) Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am Sociol Rev 15:351–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ (2006a) How does community context matter? Social mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In: Wikström P-OH, Sampson RJ (eds) The explanation of crime: context, mechanisms, and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 31–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ (2006b) Collective efficacy theory: Lessons learned and directions for future inquiry. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins K (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory, advances in criminological theory, vol 15. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 149–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94:774–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Wikström P-OH (2008) The social order of violence in Chicago and Stockholm neighborhoods: a comparative inquiry. In: Shapiro I, Kalyvas S, Masoud T (eds) Order, conflict, and violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 97–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarnecki J (1986) Delinquent networks. Report 1986, No 1, Stockholm, National Council for Crime Prevention

  • Shaw CR, McKay HD (1969[1942]) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Simcha-Fagan O, Schwartz JE (1986) Neighborhood and delinquency: an assessment of contextual effects. Criminology 24:667–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RB (1997) Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods: ecology, microecology, and the systemic model of social disorganization. J Res Crime Delinq 34:113–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton PR, Shaw G, Williams AM (1997) Tourist group holiday decision making and behaviour: the influence of children. Tourism Manage 18:287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson J, Bullock N, Dickens P, Steadman P, Taylor E (1973) A model of student’s daily activity patterns. Environ Plan 5:231–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warr M (2002) Companions in crime: the social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Morris N, Groff E (2010) Hot spots of juvenile crime: a longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington. J Quant Criminol 26(1):443–467

    Google Scholar 

  • West DJ, Farrington DP (1977) The delinquent way of life. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (1991) Urban crime, criminals and victims. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (2004) Crime as alternative: towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In: McCord J (ed) Beyond empiricism: institutions and intentions in the study of crime, advances in criminological theory. Transaction, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (2005) The social origins of pathways in crime: towards a developmental ecological action theory of crime involvement and its changes. In: Farrington DP (ed) Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending, advances in criminological theory, vol 14. Transaction, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (2006) Individuals, settings and acts of crime: situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In: Wikström P-OH, Sampson RJ (eds) The explanation of crime: context, mechanisms and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (2007a) Deterrence and deterrence experiences: preventing crime through the threat of punishment. In: Shoham SG, Beck O, Kett M (eds) International handbook of penology and criminal justice. CRC Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (2007b) The social ecology of crime: the role of the environment in crime causation. In: Schneider HJ (ed) Internationales Handbuch der Kriminologie, vol 1. de Gruyter, Berlin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (2009) Crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and crime involvement in early to mid adolescence. Monatschrift for Kriminalwissenschaft 92:253–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH (2010) Situational action theory. In: Cullen F, Wilcox P (eds) Encyclopaedia of criminological theory. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH, Butterworth DA (2006) Adolescent crime: individual differences and lifestyles. Willan Publishing, Cullumpton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH, Dolmén L (2001) Urbanisation, neighbourhood social integration, informal social control, minor social disorder, victimisation and fear of crime. Int Rev Victimology 8:163–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH, Loeber R (2000) Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? Criminology 38:1109–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH, Svensson R (2009) When does self-control matter? A study of the interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. (mimeo) (forthcoming)

  • Wikström P-OH, Sampson RJ (2003) Social mechanisms of community influences on crime and pathways in criminality. In: Lahey BB, Moffitt TE, Caspi A (eds) Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH, Treiber K (2007) The role of self-control in crime causation: beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Eur J Criminol 4:237–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH, Treiber K (2009a) What drives persistent offending? The neglected and unexplored role of the social environment. In: Savage J (ed) The development of persistent offending. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 389–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikström P-OH, Treiber K (2009b) Violence as situational action. Int J Confl Violence 3:75–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox P, Land KC, Hunt SA (2003) Criminal circumstance: a dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Per-Olof H. Wikström, Beth Hardie & Kyle Treiber

  2. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

    Vania Ceccato

Authors
  1. Per-Olof H. Wikström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vania Ceccato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Beth Hardie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kyle Treiber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per-Olof H. Wikström.

Additional information

The Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS+) is funded by a large grant from the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). For further information about PADS+ and its research see www.pads.ac.uk.

Appendices

Annex A: Study Design

The City

Peterborough is a medium sized UK city, with a population of approximately 160,000. It has been a centre of commerce and industry since medieval times, although most of the city’s present-day character has been established since World War II, when it joined the ‘New Towns’ movement, a programme of urban renewal aimed at providing planned, practical townships which would ‘break down the barriers’ between rich and poor. Peterborough’s population is roughly representative of that of the UK, with a slight overrepresentation of minority ethnic groups, particularly Asian, African Caribbean and Chinese.

Geographically, the Peterborough district covers approximately 350 square kilometres, encompassing a thriving city centre, a number of townships, and several outlying villages. Areas in the district differ widely in relevant social characteristics, with some ranking amongst the most and least deprived in England (Indices of Deprivation 2004Footnote 34).

The Sample

The sampling base comprised the cohort of 2349 young people living in Peterborough (postcodes PE1 to PE7) poised to start year 7 in school in 2002. This cohort was identified by combining data from the Local Education Authority, independent schools and Peterborough’s Youth Offending Service (the latter to make sure young people in special education were included in the sampling frame). Of these young people, 991 were randomly selected. Active consent was sought from their parents, and in 716 of the cases such consent was given. Comparative analyses show that the demographics of the PADS+ sample match those of the city Peterborough and do not differ substantially from those of England and Wales. As of 2008, 693 (96.8%) of the original sample were still taking part.

Study Design

PADS+ is an ongoing longitudinal study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The first wave of data collection took place in 2003 and involved structured interviews with the subjects’ parents. The subjects have since been interviewed annually from 2004 to 2008. The interviews take place during the first quarter of the year and involve a 45 min, researcher-led questionnaire and a 45 min one-to-one interview. The questionnaire covers many individual-level variables, including morality and self-control. The one-to-one interviews include varying psychometric measures, generally aimed at decision making, and the space–time budget, which collects information on social settings and subjects’ exposure to different settings. Further data on the subjects’ environments is collected through the Peterborough Community Survey (PCS), a postal survey of over 6000 households in Peterborough (and surrounding villages) which collects detailed data at the ‘output area’ level (the smallest UK census unit). PCS data can be linked to data from the space–time budget to measure the subjects’ exposure (time spent) in different kinds of social environments (for further details see PADS+ website, www.pads.ac.uk) Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

An overview of the study methodology

Full size image

Annex B: Measurement Scales

Generalized Ability to Exercise Self-Control

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements about yourself?

(Likert scale: Strongly agree; Mostly agree; Mostly disagree; Strongly disagree)

  • When I am really angry, other people better stay away from me

  • I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think

  • I sometimes find it exciting to do things that may be dangerous

  • I don’t devote much thought and effort preparing for the future

  • Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it

  • I often try to avoid things that I know will be difficult

  • I never think about what will happen to me in the future

  • I lose my temper pretty easily

Moral Rules

We would now like to ask you about a number of things that a young person your age might get up to. I would like you to tell me how serious you think it is for someone of your age to do the following:

Do you think it is very wrong, wrong, a little wrong or not wrong at all to….

  • Ride a bike through a red light

  • Skip doing homework for school

  • Skip school or work without an excuse

  • Lie, disobey or talk back to teachers

  • Go skateboarding in a place where skateboarding is not allowed

  • Tease a classmate because of the way he or she dresses

  • Smoke cigarettes

  • Get drunk with friends on a Friday evening

  • Hit another young person who makes a rude comment

  • Steal a pencil from a classmate

  • Paint graffiti on a house wall

  • Smash a street light for fun

  • Smoke cannabis

  • Steal a CD from a shop

  • Break into or try to break into a building to steal something

  • Use a weapon or force to get money or things from another young person

Collective Efficacy

Informal Social Control

For each of the following, please state if it is very likely, likely, unlikely, or very unlikely that people in your neighbourhood would act in the following manner.

  • If a group of neighbourhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, how likely is it that your neighbours would do something about it?

  • If some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, how likely is it that you or your neighbours would do something about it?

  • If there was a fight in front of your house and someone was being beaten or threatened, how likely is it that your neighbours would break it up?

  • If a child was showing disrespect to an adult, how likely is it that people in your neighbourhood would tell off or scold that child?

Social Cohesion

For each of these statements about your neighbourhood, please state whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree.

  • People around here are willing to help their neighbours.

  • This is a close-knit neighbourhood.

  • People in this neighbourhood can be trusted.

  • People in this neighbourhood generally don’t get along with each other.

  • People in this neighbourhood do not share the same values.

Annex C: Time Spent ‘Elsewhere’ in the Study Area

Table 9 Elsewhere in the study area
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wikström, PO.H., Ceccato, V., Hardie, B. et al. Activity Fields and the Dynamics of Crime. J Quant Criminol 26, 55–87 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9083-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9083-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation