Routine activity theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:38, 22 December 2024

Revision as of 20:57, 7 July 2025

Line 3:

[[File:Routine activity theory.png|thumb|300px|A graphical model of the routine activity theory. The theory stipulates three necessary conditions for most crime; a likely offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian, coming together in time and space. The lack of any of the three elements is sufficient to prevent a crime which requires offender-victim contact.]]

'''Routine activity theory''' is a sub-field of [[crime opportunity theory]] that focuses on situations of crimes. It was first proposed by [[Marcus Felson]] and [[Lawrence E. Cohen]] in their explanation of crime rate changes in the United States between 1947 and 1974.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Cohen|first1=Lawrence E.|last2=Felson|first2=Marcus|date=1979|title=Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach|jstor=2094589|journal=American Sociological Review|volume=44|issue=4|pages=588–608|doi=10.2307/2094589|citeseerx=10.1.1.476.3696}}</ref> The theory has been extensively applied and has become one of the most cited theories in criminology. Unlike criminological theories of criminality, routine activity theory studies crime as an event, closely relates crime to its environment and emphasizes its ecological process,<ref name="Encyclopedia of Theoretical Criminology"/><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Thomas|first1=C. |last2=Jeong |first2=J. |last3=Wolff|first3=K. | date=2024-12-01 |title=Testing Routine Activity Theory: Behavioural Pathways Linking Temperature to Crime|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387118615_Testing_Routine_Activity_Theory_Behavioural_Pathways_Linking_Temperature_to_Crime|journal=British Journal of Criminology |language=en |doi=10.1093/bjc/azae091 }}</ref> thereby diverting academic attention away from mere offenders.

After [[World War II]], the economy of Western countries started to boom and the Welfare states were expanding. Despite this, crime rose significantly during this time. According to Felson and Cohen, the reason for the increase is that the prosperity of contemporary society offers more opportunities for crime to occur. For example, the use of automobiles, on one hand, enables offenders to move more freely to conduct their violations and, on the other hand, provide more targets for theft. Other social changes such as college enrollment, female labor participation, urbanization, suburbanization, and lifestyles all contribute to the supply of opportunities and, subsequently, the occurrence of crime.<ref name=":0" />

Routine activity theory has its foundation in human ecology and [[rational choice theory]]. Over time, the theory has been extensively employed to study sexual crimes, robberies, cyber crimes, residential burglary and corresponding victimizations, among others. It is also worth noting that, in the study of criminal victimization, the routine activity theory is often regarded as "essentially similar"<ref>{{Cite book|title=Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization|last=Garofalo|first=J.|publisher=Sage|year=1987|___location=Beverly Hills, California}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Maxfield|first=Michael G.|date=1987|title=Lifestyle and Routine Activity Theories of Crime: Empirical Studies of Victimization, Delinquency, and Offender Decision-Making|jstor=23365565|journal=Journal of Quantitative Criminology|volume=3|issue=4|pages=275–282|doi=10.1007/BF01066831|s2cid=143901845}}</ref> to [[Lifestyle theory|lifestyle theory of criminology]] by {{harvp|Hindelang

|Gottfredson|Garofalo|1978}}.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. |last1=Hindelang |first1=M. J. |last2=Gottfredson |first2=M. R.|last3=Garofalo|first3=J.|publisher=Ballinger |year=1978|isbn=978-0-88410-793-4 |___location=Cambridge, Massachusetts}}</ref> More recently, routine activity theory has been repeatedlyempirically usedevaluated inas multilevela frameworksmechanism withexplaining socialthe disorganizationlong-noted theoryassociation inbetween understandingwarmer variousweather neighborhoodand crimessome types of crime.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Thomas|first1=C. |last2=Jeong |first2=J. |last3=Wolff|first3=K. | date=2024-12-01 |title=Testing Routine Activity Theory: Behavioural Pathways Linking Temperature to Crime|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387118615_Testing_Routine_Activity_Theory_Behavioural_Pathways_Linking_Temperature_to_Crime|journal=British Journal of Criminology |language=en |doi=10.1093/bjc/azae091 }}</ref>

==Theoretical framework==

In routine activity theory, crime is likely to occur when three essential elements of crime converge in space and time: a motivated offender, an attractive target, and the absence of capable guardianship.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="Social Inequality" />

The analytic focus of routine activity theory takes a macro-level view and emphasizes broad-scale shifts in the patterns of victim and offender behavior. It focuses on specific crime events and offender behavior/decisions. Routine activity theory is based on the assumption that crime can be committed by anyone who has the opportunity. The theory also statesimply that victims arecan givenincrease choicesor ondecrease whethertheir torisk beof victimsvictimization mainly by notwhether they placing themselves in situations where a crime can be committed against them.{{cn|date=February 2024}}

===Motivated offender===

Line 27:

===Absence of a suitable guardian===

Guardianship refers to a person or an object that is effective in deterring criminal offenses,<ref name="Social Inequality">{{cite journal |last1=Cohen |first1=Lawrence E. |last2=Kluegel |first2=James R. |last3=Land |first3=Kenneth C. |title=Social Inequality and Predatory Criminal Victimization: An Exposition and Test of A Formal Theory|journal=American Sociological Review|date=1981|volume=46 |issue=5 |pages=505–524|doi=10.2307/2094935 |jstor=2094935 }}</ref> and sometimes crime is stopped by simple presence of guardianship in space and time.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Felson|first=Marcus|date=1995|title=Those who discourage crime|journal=Crime and Place|volume=4|pages=53–66}}</ref> A guardian would not necessarily have to be a policeman or a security guard but rather a person whose proximity or presence would lower the chances of a crime happening. This could include a housewife, a doorman, a neighbourneighbor or a co-worker. Whilst inadvertent, the presence of a guardian has a powerful impact on the likelihood of a crime taking place. Thus when the guardian is not within the vicinity of the target, the likelihood of a crime occurring is significantly higher.<ref>https://popcenter.asu.edu/sites/default/files/opportunity_makes_the_thief.pdf Page 4 </ref>

==Empirical evidence==

Line 64:

* {{cite journal|ref=none |last1=Rountree |first1=P. W. |last2=Land |first2=K. C. |last3=Miethe |first3=T. D. |date=1994 |title=Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods |journal=Criminology |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=387–414 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01159.x }}

* {{cite journal|ref=none |last1=Smith |first1=W. R. |last2=Frazee |first2=S. G. |last3=Davison |first3=E. L. |date=2000 |title=Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: Small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. |journal=Criminology |volume=38 |issue=2 |pages=489–524|doi=10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00897.x }}

* {{cite journal|ref=none |last1=Thomas|first1=C. |last2=Jeong |first2=J. |last3=Wolff|first3=K. | date=2024-12-01 |title=Testing Routine Activity Theory: Behavioural Pathways Linking Temperature to Crime|url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387118615_Testing_Routine_Activity_Theory_Behavioural_Pathways_Linking_Temperature_to_Crime|journal=British Journal of Criminology |language=en |doi=10.1093/bjc/azae091 }}

[[Category:Criminology]]