Content area
Full Text
Introduction
Opportunity-based theories of crime and delinquency are focused on characteristics of the physical and social environment that are crime opportunity facilitators (for example, Cohen and Felson, 1979; Brantingham and Brantingham, 1993; Eck and Weisburd, 1994). Routine activities theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979) has been the subject of considerable research over the last three decades. Theoretical tests, cross-national comparisons, field observations, experiments and program evaluations are among the many types of studies that have been carried out on this theory (for example, Bennett, 1991; Reynald, 2010; Hollis-Peel et al , 2011). Some of these studies have refined or expanded the different components of the theory, and some have advanced knowledge whereas others have misconstrued the theory (for the most current iteration of the theoretical propositions, see Felson and Boba, 2010).
Cohen and Felson (1979, p. 593) define routine activities as 'recurrent and prevalent activities which provide for basic population and individual needs, whatever their biological or cultural origins'. For the original theorists, routine activities are those activities that are defined by an individual's daily routines. They determined that three essential components derived from typical routine activities that can be used to describe requisite conditions for a criminal event and must co-occur in time and space: motivated offender, suitable targets and a lack of capable guardianship. Offender motivation is often assumed - the theory is based on a rational choice perspective. The two key elements of the theory are, therefore, the suitable target and capable guardianship dimensions.
More theoretical and research attention has been given to the target hardening dimension of routine activities theory. This uneven focus has led to confusion surrounding the guardianship construct. Felson (1995, p. 53) describes guardianship as being exercised by those who serve 'by simple presence to prevent crime and by absence to make crime more likely'. This implies that (perhaps) the most important mechanism involved is the feeling that someone is watching and could observe inappropriate behaviors thus increasing the risk.
There is a clear need in our field to clarify the definitions of the terms we use frequently (Ekblom, 2011). Terms such as crime, delinquency and, in our case, guardianship are sometimes not defined at all, not properly defined or the definitions have such serious inconsistencies as to...