Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | alexina-king |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Definition & concept
“Territorial functioning” refers to how people manage the space they own or occupy
Elements of Territorial Functioning:
attitudes behaviour
markers
Importance of territorial functioning
Location – spaces that surround the home (streets, front & back yards)
Reason – these spaces influence the quality of life in the home
Link between territorial functioning and crime
Notion – offenders perceive maintenance of outdoor residential spaces by the occupants as likely to be defended
Support:Craik & Appleyard (1980)Taylor et al., (1984)
Victimisation perspective
The “victimisation perspective” focuses on the characteristics and lifestyle of the victims and to see how that affect their risk of becoming a victim.
Objectives of the study
1) Establish the demographic variables that are related to victimisation of household crimes
2) Examine the relationship between territorial functioning and victimisation of household crimes
Methodology
Main site selection criteria: Council Estates in Sheffield - Similar
demographic characteristics (Census SAS)
Varying crime rates (Police Offence and Offender Data)
Methodology
Procedure:
Conducted in 2 stages
Stage 1 (Survey of 217 respondents)
Stage 2 (Structured interviews – 12 respondents)
Methodology Stage 1 (Survey of 217 respondents) Part 1 (demographic information, territorial
attitudes, fear and crime problems, victimisation experience)
Part 2 (observation of residents’ front garden – evaluate territorial markers)
Methodology
Measures Victimisation:
Household & personal crimes (Based on 1996 BCS)
Territorial functioning:11 Attitude statementsObservation of marking behaviour
Methodology Stage 2 (Structured interviews – 12
respondents)
Purpose – Understand issues from the first stage
Emphasis on description and discovery and not on generalisation
Results – Crime in the estates
Victimisation Survey Data
Estate High (SE)
Estate High (NW)
Estate Low
Offence rate –h/hold
(per 100 h/hold)
165ratio (2.8)
138ratio (2.4)
58ratio (1.0)
Offence rate –motor vehicle
(per 100 h/hold)
94ratio (2.0)
52ratio (1.1)
48ratio (1.0)
Results – Overall victimisation 49%
16% 14%9%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
none once twice 3 times 4 ormore
Victimisation
Results – Victimisation by estate
39%42%
59%
28%
19%
4%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
none 4 or more
Estate High (SE)
Estate High(NW)
Estate Low
Results - Demographic characteristics by household victimisation
Significant relationships (p<.05)
(Spearman’s rho & Mann-Whitney)
Age
Length of residence
Results - Demographic characteristics by household victimisation
Non Significant relationships (p>.05) (Spearman’s rho & Mann-Whitney)
Gender Ethnic originMarital status Household income Social class Type of residenceOccupation Type of ownership
Results – Victimisation and territorial functioning
An increase in household victimisation is associated with a decrease in levels of territorial functioning at the individual and neighbourhood level.
The analysis cannot infer the causal relationship between the two variables
Two possible explanations
First explanationIncrease in level of threat results in the reduction of territorial claims in accordance with the RETREAT approach (Taylor & Brower, 1985).
High victimisation Low territorial functioning
Alternative explanationRespondents were highly victimised because they expressed low levels of territorial functioning in the first place.
High victimisation Low territorial functioning
Burglars are hypothesised to prefer houses with less markers as targets.
Results - Interviews
Purpose – examine which of the two explanations apply.
Subjects – 3 highly victimised respondents (7 or more incidents within the 1 year period).
Respondents A, B & C
Results - Interview
Summary of findings Both respondents A & B displayed more
territorial features before the incident. Displays were in the form of more
personalised items, barriers, flower pots. Gradual decline in territorial functioning as
a result of repeated victimisation.
In contrast, Respondent C had never attempted to
display any territorial feature. Why was Respondent C not bothered? Did not believe that territorial display had
any function in protecting the property. Felt that these efforts require a lot of time
and money – wasteful effort
Discussion
Age and length of residence are related to household victimisation.
This reflects the individual guardianship by older and long term occupier.
Discussion
Low territorial functioning is related to higher victimisation experience.
However, the relationship can work in both ways.
High victimisation Low territorial functioning
Conclusion
The victimisation perspective is important in studying crime.
Crime is not merely an activity of the offender.
The characteristics of the victims also influence crime.