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

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

in capable guardians to prevent crimes, and

activities: (a) a potential offender with the
therefore an environment of greater opportunity.
capac- ity to commit a crime; (b) a suitable
Cohen and Felson (1979) tested their expla-
target or victim; and finally (c) the absence of
nation for changes in crime trends through
guardians capable of protecting targets and
empirical evaluation of their principal postu-
victims.
lates. In order to confirm that the dispersion
The likely offender may be anyone with a
of activities away from the home and the fam-
motive to commit a crime and with the capacity
ily could increase the possibility of becoming
to do so (Felson & Cohen, 1980), although it is
a suitable target and diminish the presence of
most likely to be a young man, without stable
capable guardians; to confirm that the suitability
employment, who has failed in school, and who
of targets influenced predatory contacts and that
has a record of traffic accidents and emergency
solitary life, away from the family environment,
room visits (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
could raise victimization rates; and, finally, to
Although in their initial formulation Cohen and
try to verify that the rise in crime was related
Felson (1979) used the term “motivated
to changes in the structure of daily activities in
offender”, in later works, par- ticularly those of
American life, they turned to various studies
Felson (among others, Felson & Boba, 2010;
that provided sufficient empirical support to
Felson & Cohen, 1980) they avoided the term
confirm their hypotheses. Thus, for example,
“motivated” in refering to the offender, as what
they utilized Hindelang’s victimization surveys
they truly considered relevant was not
(1976) to con- firm that activities performed
disposition or motivation to commit a crime but
away from home presented greater risks than
rather the physical factors that made it possible
those performed at home. They also defined the
for a person to be involved in crime. What this
household activity ratio, which provided an
approach contributed was an articulation of the
estimate of the propor- tion of American
need to divert attention away from the offender
households most exposed to
in order to understand the crime (Felson, 1995),
the risk of personal or property victimization.
given that the focus had been exclusively on
Although the relationship between some ele-
him or her. Nevertheless, although it was
ments of the criminal event in space and time
necessary to pay attention to other aspects of
had already been recognized by earlier theories
crime in order to understand and prevent it
such as the older ecological theories of Shaw
(Felson & Clarke, 1998), this never meant
and McKay (Shaw et al., 1929), as well as
leaving aside the “point of view” of the offender
Hirschi’s social control theory (Hirschi, 1969)
(Felson, 2008), given that, as we shall see, the
and oth- ers, Cohen and Felson not only
very definition of the target as “suitable” is made
identified the socio-environmental aspect of the
through the understanding of the purposes and
crime event but also, by focusing on routine
capacities of the aggressor in relation to intrinsic
activities, offered a model with great expressive
characteristics of the potential targets of crime.
power to explain the “ecological” nature of
The suitable target is a person or property that
crime and demonstrate how elements apparently
may be threatened by an offender. Felson prefers
unconnected to the illegal activity may shape
the term “target” to “victim,” as the former high-
and determine it (or its absence). Thus, for
lights the fact that the majority of crimes are
example, many techno- logical advances for
aimed at obtaining goods, and therefore the
legitimate purposes, such as automobiles,
“vic- tim” may be absent from the place of the
electronic devices, highways, or telephones,
crime (Felson & Clarke, 1998). The probability
may be used by offenders for their illegitimate
that a target will be more or less suitable is
activities. That is to say, the structure of routine
influenced by four attributes, described from the
legal activities also determines how crime is
point of the view of the offender by the acronym
organized in society as well as where it will
VIVA (value, inertia, visibility, and access),
occur most frequently, with the important
which defines its level of risk (Cohen & Felson,
preventive consequences that flow therefrom.
1979; Felson & 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;
 ROUTINE A CTIVITY 3
• inertia, referring to size, weight, and shape, area had no significant effect on criminal
or the physical aspects of the person or good activity in the area (Kelling, Pate, Dieckman, &
that act as obstacles or impediments to the Brown, 1974). Others who must be considered

•
offender seeing it as suitable; capable guardians, and who may be even more
visibility, or exposure of targets to offenders, important for the prevention of crime, are the
the attribute that marks the person or the occupant of a house, a brother, a friend, or a
good for the attack;
• access, referring to the design of the site and
passer-by – in general, any person who in the
performance of his or her daily activities can,
the placement of the object that increases the through presence or activity, protect him- or
risk of attack or makes it easier to carry out. herself, protect others, or protect his or her own
or others’ property.
Later developments modified the VIVA con- The concept of the capable guardian, present
cept, already described somewhat superficially or absent, has been subject to updates practically
in the first paper by Cohen and Felson (1979), since its initial formulation. Its very definition
which could be applied to any type of target, has been debated and reformulated by Felson
whether material or personal. Consistent with himself, as well as by other researchers. For
their ecological perspective, the authors focused example, Hollis-Peel et al., in a literature review
at first on the relationship of the target to space of the guardian figure in routine activity theory,
and time, without paying much attention to the have defined guardianship as “the physical or
motives that led the offender to select one target symbolic presence of an individual (or group
or another and independently of whether the of individuals) that acts (either intentionally or
target was material or not. Once the theory had unintentionally) to deter a potential criminal
been developed and complemented by others event” (Hollis-Peel, Reynald, van Bavel, Elffers,
such as “rational choice,” sufficiently distant & Welsh, 2011, p. 54), a definition that includes
from theories of criminality and supported by a ele- ments that they view as insufficiently
wide body of empirical research, later specified in the original article by Cohen and
formulations took up new concepts such as Felson (1979) as well as later works. One
Clarke’s “hot prod- ucts” (1999), which focused example is closed-circuit television (CCTV),
specifically on the most attractive objects to which is operated by people whose presence at
thieves. By means of the acronym CRAVED, the crime site is not physical (Hollis-Peel et al.,
Clarke describes those prod- ucts that are stolen 2011). Felson himself, in an effort to tie his
with the greatest frequency as concealable, theory to Hirschi’s social control theory (1969),
removable, available, valuable, enjoyable, and refines the figure of the guardian, distinguishing
disposable. the “intimate handler” from the “place manager”
The third and final element described in the (Felson, 1995). The first may be a parent or
theory is the absence of a capable guardian, friend who tries, through disapproval of the
someone who can intervene to stop or impede a potential offender’s behavior, to prevent actions
crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979). A guardian that violate the rules. The place manager, the
capa- ble of preventing crime is one in whose second aspect of the guardian, refers to those
presence the crime is not committed, and whose individuals who have a supervisory
absence makes it more probable (Felson, 1995). responsibility in particular places, for example,
This definition includes anyone who moves doormen, bus drivers, etc. Thus, in developing
through an area or who functions as a guard of the concept of the guardian, Felson takes the
persons or property, although the concept of four elements of Hirschi’s theory (1969),
guardian should not be restricted to or be attachment, commit- ment, involvement, and
confused with police or security guards. They belief, and condenses them into one, “handle.”
are obviously capable guardians, and in fact In probing the idea that someone could dissuade
they are usually absent when a crime occurs an offender by means of his presence in a place,
(Felson & Boba, 2010), as demonstrated in the or that a person could discourage a possible
classic Kansas City Preventive Patrol offender because of his relationship with him,
Experiment, which tested the effectiveness of Felson is consistent with the idea of social
random patrols and found that an increase from control and drives home the idea that control is a
normal patrol levels in a given critical element in crime rate trends (Cohen &
Felson, 1979).
4 ROUTINE A CTIVITY

On the basis of the three elements initially

are ineffective or their actions are occasionally
pro- posed by Cohen and Felson (1979) –
mistaken, develop the idea of what they call
offender, target, and guardian – and the later
“super controllers,” that is, people,
incorporation of the intimate handler, Eck
organizations, and institutions that provide
developed what is known as the crime triangle,
incentives for con- trollers to prevent or
which distinguishes the elements necessary fora
facilitate crime and that, without directly
crime to occur from other elements, called
influencing its elements, may do so indirectly
controllers, that have the potential to prevent it
and incentivize prevention. In this extension of
(Eck, 1994). Offender, target, and place, located
the crime triangle, they add a third set of
in the inner triangle, are supervised by
elements grouped around three categories
controllers, located in the outer triangle, which
(formal, diffuse, and personal) and 10 types
can reduce the probability of a crime event by
(organizational, contractual, financial, reg-
controlling each of these three elements. Thus,
ulatory, courts, political, market, media, group,
the handlers are those persons with whom the
and family).
offender has an emotional rela- tionship,
The focus of routine activities has its roots
whether through family, friendship, religion,
in Amos Hawley’s human ecology theory of
respect, or others. Their objective is to keep the
community structure (1950). Although spatial
potential offender away from problems. On the
variations in crime rates had already been stud-
other hand, managers are owners of the place or
ied by authors such as Guerry or Quètelet, the
their agents – doormen, store employ- ees,
research had rarely considered the temporal
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
protect the target; they are not only police and
Felson focused their attention on patterns of
security guards, but, to a greater extent, owners
human activity based on the teachings of
who guard their own properties.
Hawley, for whom community is not merely a
Exploring these concepts, Felson (1995) rea-
territorial unit, but is instead a symbiotic
soned that the probability that the guardian, the
organization of human activities that take place
handler, or the place manager may be successful
in space and time (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
should be considered in relation to his or her
Thus, rhythm, tempo, and timing constitute the
degree of responsibility. He establishes four dif-
three elements in which the organization of time
ferent levels: personal, such as owners, family,
is broken down, and which must be studied in
and friends; assigned, such as employees who
order to understand society.
have been assigned specific responsibilities for
Although its foundation is in human ecology,
looking after a place; diffuse, such as employees
responsibility of any person. He constructs a 4 ×
routine activity theory presents many points of
contact with, and has been influenced by, other
with generic responsibilities; and general, the criminological theories and approaches that
3 grid with 12 cells, with levels of responsibility arose in the 1970s in response to the failure of
in the rows and crime elements and their many intervention programs that conceived of
respective controllers in the columns. the criminal as a being who should be treated
Accordingly, we can analyze the probability of a from a medical or psychological perspective for
controller’s success upon a given element, his or her individual dispositions or pathologies.
descending according to the level of On the contrary, approaches such as rational
responsibility. Taking as an example an object choice operate from a pragmatic perspective of
watched over by a guardian, such as a handbag: intervention in situational factors and criminal
if the person watching it is the owner, the risk of opportunities. The origin of this perspective may
it being stolen is low; if it is a security guard, be found in the works of Cornish and Clarke
the risk will still be low but not as low as if it (1986), which overlap with Felson’s approach in
were the owner; if it is an employee with other their starting point (rational decision) and in
duties, the risk will be greater; and finally, if it is placing the emphasis in crime prevention and
a person with no relationship to the handbag’s explanation not only on the criminal, but also on
owner, the risk will increase. the environment in which he or she acts.
For their part, Sampson, Eck, and Dunham Rational choice proposes that offenders’
(2010), in analyzing the reasons why controllers behavior seeks
 ROUTINE A CTIVITY 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
objectives, whether legal or illegal, and
illicit acts. Offenders commit their crimes near
ultimately chooses to begin offending and either
the areas where they spend the most time
continue or not; the second refers to the specific
(home, work, school, shopping, and
crime, which is influenced by situational factors.
entertainment) and around the routes that
However, a rational decision does not mean that
connect them. Awareness of the space around
the criminal has made a cold, dispassionate
them is determined by activ- ities undertaken in
calculus of every option and consequence and
the past and conditions the placement of their
that the criminal is infallible in his or her
future activities. If we want to understand the
perceptions and evalua- tions; like all human
spatiotemporal distribution pat- terns of crime,
decisions, they are limited by the many
we must, therefore understand the patterns of
variables that influence them and of which the
daily life and movements of criminals. Over the
offender may or may not be aware.
years, the theory has seen many applications
From the beginning, the approach of Cohen
and developments. Given its strong pragmatic
and Felson has been consistent with the idea
leaning, it is focused principally on preventing
of a rational criminal who takes advantage of
crime by reducing opportunities. In this vein,
opportunities. In this sense, the topic of opportu-
and based on the perspective of rational choice
nity plays a relevant role in the focus on routine
and the idea of the controller introduced by
activities as well as for the perspective of
routine activity theory, the theory of situa-
rational choice. One of the first precedents of
tional crime prevention has emerged, focused
the opportu- nity paradigm, though limited to
on altering the structures of opportunity of a
the victim’s role, was Hindelang’s lifestyle
specific crime by means of different techniques
theory (1976), whose central idea is that certain
with the goal of increasing effort, increasing
lifestyles favor vic- timization because they
risks,
offer more opportunities for it. For its part, the
reducing benefits, and removing excuses.
work of Mayhew et al. in London, Crime as In addition, to explain the distribution of
opportunity (Mayhew, Clarke, Sturman, & crime in space, in relation to routine activity
Hough, 1976), is considered one of the great theory, other researchers have analyzed places
milestones of opportunity theories. Although it in which crimes occur, looking for differences
is contemporary with the work of Cohen and among countries or cities or showing
Felson (1979), the British theory should be concentrations in given areas; for example,
considered independent of the devel- opment of Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger (1989) carried out
routine activity theory, given that there were no a study in the city of Minneapolis in which they
references at the time to research from the other found that 50% of calls to police came from 3%
side of the Atlantic, as Tilley (2009) has pointed of urban areas, while robberies were
out. Routine activity theory suggests that crime concentrated in 3.6% of the city. In the same
rates may rise or fall without any change in the vein, this theory has been used to predict
number of criminals. In fact, the rise in victimization as well as the characteristics and
availability of suitable targets or the diminished behaviors of victims.
effectiveness of guardians, or changes in Finally, the theory has been widely used to
society’s routine activities, may increase the study, among other things, sexual crimes (e.g.,
probability that these elements converge in Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001), robbery (e.g.,
space and time and therefore increase Tseloni, Wittebrood, Farrell, & Pease, 2004),
opportunities for crime. One of the other most and more recently cybercrime; see, for example,
powerful ideas in routine
 6 ROUTINE A CTIVITY

the work of Miró (2011), who has described

 ROUTINE A CTIVITY 7
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
moral and political legitimacy, and its tendency tolerance” police policies associated with the
to blame the victim. These attacks, which flow repression of 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
Felson, 2008). offender’s motivations in that it places emphasis
In relation to its efficacy, the principal on crime as an event that occurs in a concrete
reproach made of the theory is that measures place at a specific time, and in so doing offers,
introduced have no real effect in reducing crime, through an attempt at conceptualization separate
as what really results is a displacement – of the from the three elements of crime and their
time, place, target, method, or form of the crime. corresponding controllers, a powerful tool for
Nevertheless, the rationality and opportunity crime analysis and 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
component, and never to violent crimes (Akers, with crime analysis and prevention, and has
1998). In connection with opportunity, it has been applied to strategies such as situational
been pointed out that routine activity theory and preven- tion or problem-oriented policing and
other crime theories do not fully explain problem analysis with a significant degree of
whether places can alter their capacity to cause effectiveness. Although there have been
crime or merely serve as a pole of attraction for important criticisms of its ethical and
crimes that would have occurred regardless. methodological underpinnings, the majority of
Finally, routine activity theory has received critics articulate its limitations and risks but are
its most severe criticism in the area of moral unable to deny its capacity to express and
legitimacy. Its detractors have maintained that explain the need to look at crime, in order to
the focus on routine activities has shown a com- prevent it, by paying attention to the way in
plete lack of interest in or has directly avoided which daily life unfolds in different places.
the offender, thus forgetting the etiology of the
problem. In this sense the theory, although it SEE ALSO: Differential Association Theory;
begins from the premise of the existence of a General Strain Theory; Labeling Theory;
“motivated offender,” has not defined its Theories of Juvenile Delinquency.
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
commit crimes?” (Akers, 1997). Also structure: A general theory of crime and deviance.
considering the problem of motivation, other Boston: North- eastern University Press.
Clarke, R. V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding,
authors believe that from an analytic point of antic-
view motivation cannot be separated from ipating and reducing demand for stolen goods
opportunity, as both elements are merely (Paper 112), B. Webb (Ed.). London: Home Office,
descriptions of the criminal Research Development and Statistics Directorate.
 8 ROUTINE A CTIVITY

Clarke, R. V., & Felson M. (Eds.). (1993). Routine

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

View publication stats