Historically speaking, criminological theory tends to pay great attention to identifying the various sources of criminal motivation while downplaying the opportunity to carry out crime in particular situations. However, perspectives that address situational opportunity have gained tremendous traction in the field over the past several decades to the point that there is now a substantial body of theory and research on the issue. This article reviews such theory and research within the context of four overlapping yet distinct lines of inquiry. First, we review scholarship that uses situational opportunity to understand individual victimization. Second, we discuss theory and research that link situational opportunity and high-crime places. Third, we explore scholarship that embraces a multicontextual opportunity perspective to understand crime and victimization events within neighborhood contexts. Fourth, we examine work that integrates situational opportunity into explanations of offending.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman JM, Rossmo DK. 2015. How far to travel? A multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance. J. Quant. Criminol. 31:237–62 [Google Scholar]
  2. Andresen MA, Linning SJ, Malleson N. 2017. Crime at places and spatial concentrations: exploring the spatial stability of property crime in Vancouver BC, 2003–2013. J. Quant. Criminol. 33:255–75 [Google Scholar]
  3. Augustine MC, Wilcox P, Ousey GC, Clayton RR. 2002. Opportunity theory and adolescent school-based victimization. Violence Vict 17:233–53 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benson ML, Simpson SS. 2015. Understanding White-Collar Crime: An Opportunity Perspective New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernasco W. 2010a. Modeling micro-level crime location choice: application of the discrete choice framework to crime at places. J. Quant. Criminol. 26:113–38 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernasco W. 2010b. A sentimental journey to crime: effects of residential history on crime location choice. Criminology 48:389–416 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernasco W, Block R. 2009. Where offenders choose to attack: a discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology 47:93–130 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernasco W, Block R. 2011. Robberies in Chicago: a block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 48:33–57 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bernasco W, Kooistra T. 2010. Effects of residential history on commercial robbers’ crime location choices. Eur. J. Criminol. 7:251–65 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bernasco W, Nieuwbeerta P. 2005. How do residential burglars select target areas?. Br. J. Criminol. 45:296–315 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bottoms AR. 1994. Environmental criminology. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology M Maguire, R Morgan, R Reiner 585–656 Oxford: Clarendon Press [Google Scholar]
  12. Bowers KJ, Johnson SD, Hirschfield AFG. 2004. Closing off opportunities for crime: an evaluation of alley-gating. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 10:285–308 [Google Scholar]
  13. Braga AA, Hureau DM, Papachristos AV. 2011. The relevance of micro places to citywide robbery trends: a longitudinal analysis of robbery incidents at street corners and block faces in Boston. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 48:7–32 [Google Scholar]
  14. Braga AA, Papachristos AV, Hureau DM. 2010. The concentration and stability of gun violence at micro places in Boston, 1980–2008. J. Quant. Criminol. 26:33–53 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL. 1981. Notes on the geometry of crime. Environmental Criminology PJ Brantingham, PL Brantingham 27–54 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [Google Scholar]
  16. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ. 1982. Mobility, notoriety and crime: a study of crime patterns in urban nodal points. J. Environ. Syst. 11:89–99 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ. 1993. Nodes, paths, and edges: considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 13:3–28 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ. 1999. A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Stud. Crime Crime Prev. 8:7–26 [Google Scholar]
  19. Burrow JD, Apel R. 2008. Youth behavior, school structure, and student risk of victimization. Justice Q 25:349–80 [Google Scholar]
  20. Clarke RV. 2010. Crime science. The SAGE Handbook of Criminological Theory E McLaughlin, T Newburn 271–83 London: SAGE [Google Scholar]
  21. Clarke RV, Cornish DB. 1985. Modeling offenders' decisions: a framework for research and policy. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 6 M Tonry, N Morris 147–85 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Clarke RV, Felson M. 2011. The origins of the routine activity approach and situational crime prevention. The Origins of American Criminology: Advances in Criminological Theory 16 FT Cullen, CL Jonson, AJ Myer, F Adler 245–60 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publ. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cohen LE, Felson M. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activities approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:588–608 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cohen LE, Felson M, Land KC. 1980. Property crime rates in the United States: a macrodynamic analysis, 1947–1977; with ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s. Am. J. Sociol. 86:90–118 [Google Scholar]
  25. Cohen LE, Kluegel JR, Land KC. 1981. Social inequality and predatory victimization: an exposition and test of a formal theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:505–24 [Google Scholar]
  26. Coupe T, Blake L. 2006. Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology 44:431–64 [Google Scholar]
  27. Deryol R, Wilcox P, Logan M, Wooldredge J. 2016. Crime places in context: an illustration of the multilevel nature of hotspot development. J. Quant. Criminol. 32:305–25 [Google Scholar]
  28. Donnelly PG, Kimble CE. 1997. Community organizing, environmental change, and neighborhood crime. Crime Delinq 43:493–511 [Google Scholar]
  29. Eck J. 2003. Police problems: the complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation. Crime Prevention Studies 15 Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to Mainstream J Knutsson 79–113 Monsey, NY: Crim. Justice Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Eck JE, Guerette RT. 2012. Place-based crime prevention: theory, evidence, and policy. The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention BC Welsh, DP Farrington New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Eck JE, Madensen TD. 2018. Place management, guardianship and the establishment of order. Advances in Criminological Theory 23 Deterrence, Choice, and Crime: Contemporary Perspectives DS Nagin, FT Cullen, CL Jonson New York: Routledge In press [Google Scholar]
  32. Eck JE, Weisburd D. 1995. Crime places in crime theory. Crime Prevention Studies 4 Crime and Place JE Eck, D Weisburd 1–33 Monsey: Crim. Justice Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Felson M. 1986. Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending DB Cornish, RV Clarke 119–28 New York: Springer-Verlag [Google Scholar]
  34. Felson M. 1994. Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press [Google Scholar]
  35. Felson M. 1995. Those who discourage crime. Crime Prevention Studies 4 Crime and Place JE Eck, D Weisburd 53–66 Monsey, NY: Crim. Justice Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Felson M. 2017. The routine activity approach. Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis R Wortley, M Townsley 87–97 New York: Routledge, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  37. Felson M, Clarke RV. 1998. Opportunity makes the thief: practical theory for crime prevention Pap. 98, Police Res. Ser., Res. Dev. Stat. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Turner MG. 1999. The Extent and Nature of Sexual Victimization among College Women: A National-Level Analysis Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice [Google Scholar]
  39. Fisher BS, Daigle LE, Cullen FT. 2010a. Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [Google Scholar]
  40. Fisher BS, Daigle LE, Cullen FT. 2010b. What distinguishes single from recurrent sexual victims? The role of lifestyle-routine activities and first-incident characteristics. Justice Q 27:102–29 [Google Scholar]
  41. Fisher BS, Sloan JJ, Cullen FT, Lu C. 1998. Crime in the ivory tower: the level and sources of student victimization. Criminology 36:671–710 [Google Scholar]
  42. Fisher BS, Stewart M. 2007. Vulnerabilities and opportunities 101: the extent, nature, and impact of stalking among college students and implications for campus policy and programs. Campus Crime: Legal, Social, and Policy Perspectives BS Fisher, JJ Sloan III 210–30 Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  43. Gibson CL, Miller JM, Jennings WG. 2009. Using propensity score matching to understand the relationship between gang membership and violent victimization: a research note. Justice Q 26:625–43 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T. 1990. A General Theory of Crime Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Graham K, Bernards S, Osgood DW, Wells S. 2006. Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction 101:1569–80 [Google Scholar]
  46. Graham K, Homel R. 2012. Raising the Bar: Preventing Aggression In and Around Bars, Pubs, and Clubs New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  47. Graham K, Osgood DW, Zibrowski E, Purcell J, Gliksman L. et al. 2004. The effect of the Safe Bars programme on physical aggression in bars: results of a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Rev 23:31–41 [Google Scholar]
  48. Groff ER, Weisburd D, Yang S. 2010. Is it important to examine crime trends at a local “micro” level? A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. J. Quant. Criminol. 26:7–32 [Google Scholar]
  49. Grubesic TH, Pridemore WA. 2011. Alcohol outlets and clusters of violence. Int. J. Health Geograph. 10:130–41 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hart TC, Miethe TD. 2014. Street robbery and public bus stops: a case study of activity nodes and situational risk. Secur. J. 27:180–93 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hawley AH. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure New York: Ronald [Google Scholar]
  52. Haynie DL, Osgood DW. 2005. Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter. ? Soc. Forces 84:1109–30 [Google Scholar]
  53. Henson B, Wilcox P, Reyns BW, Cullen FT. 2010. Gender, adolescent lifestyles, and violent victimization: implications for routine activity theory. Vict. Offenders 5:1–26 [Google Scholar]
  54. Hindelang MJ, Gottfredson MR, Garofalo J. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization Cambridge, MA: Ballinger [Google Scholar]
  55. Hirschi T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  56. Hirschi T. 1989. Exploring alternatives to integrated theory. Deviance and Crime: Problems and Prospects SF Messner, MD Krohn, AE Liska 37–49 Albany, NY: State Univ. New York Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Hoeben EM, Weerman FM. 2016. Why is involvement in unstructured socializing related to adolescent delinquency?. Criminology 54:242–81 [Google Scholar]
  58. Hughes LA, Short JF Jr.. 2014. Partying, cruising, and hanging in the streets: gangs, routine activities, and delinquency and violence in Chicago, 1959–1962. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:415–51 [Google Scholar]
  59. Jacobs J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities New York: Random House [Google Scholar]
  60. Jensen GF, Brownfield D. 1986. Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: beyond routine activity. Violence Vict 1:85–99 [Google Scholar]
  61. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ. 2010. Permeability and burglary risk: Are cul-de-sacs safer?. J. Quant. Criminol. 26:89–111 [Google Scholar]
  62. Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD, Fisher BS, Martin SL. 2009. College women's experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. J. Am. Coll. Health 57:639–49 [Google Scholar]
  63. Kulig TC, Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Chouhy C, Unnever JD. 2017. Explaining bullying victimization: assessing the generality of the low self-control/risky lifestyle model. Vict. Offenders. In press [Google Scholar]
  64. Lammers M, Menting B, Ruiter S, Bernasco W. 2015. Biting once, twice: the influence of prior on subsequent crime location choice. Criminology 53:309–29 [Google Scholar]
  65. Land KC, Felson M. 1976. A general framework for building dynamic macro social indicator models: including an analysis of changes in crime rates and police expenditures. Am. J. Sociol. 82:565–604 [Google Scholar]
  66. Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Lauritsen JL, Laub JH, Sampson RJ. 1992. Conventional and delinquent activities: implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents. Violence Vict 7:91–108 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lauritsen JL, Sampson RJ, Laub JH. 1991. The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology 29:265–92 [Google Scholar]
  69. Lim H, Wilcox P. 2017. Crime-reduction effects of open-street CCTV: conditionality considerations. Justice Q 34:597–626 [Google Scholar]
  70. Madensen TD, Eck JE. 2013. Crime places and place management. The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory FT Cullen, P Wilcox 554–78 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. Maimon D, Browning CR. 2010. Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology 48:443–74 [Google Scholar]
  72. Menting B, Lamers M, Ruiter S, Bernasco W. 2016. Family matters: effects of family members’ residential areas on crime location choice. Criminology 54:413–33 [Google Scholar]
  73. Messner SF, Lu Z, Zhang L, Liu J. 2007. Risks of criminal victimization in contemporary urban China: an application of lifestyle/routine activities theory. Justice Q 24:496–522 [Google Scholar]
  74. Miethe TD, McDowall D. 1993. Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Soc. Forces 71:741–59 [Google Scholar]
  75. Miethe TD, Meier RF. 1994. Crime and Its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations Albany, NY: State Univ. New York Press [Google Scholar]
  76. Mustaine EE, Tewksbury R. 1998. Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: a routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology 36:829–87 [Google Scholar]
  77. Mustaine EE, Tewksbury R. 1999a. A routine activity theory explanation for women's stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women 5:43–62 [Google Scholar]
  78. Mustaine EE, Tewksbury R. 1999b. Victimization risks at leisure: a gender-specific analysis. Violence Vict 13:231–49 [Google Scholar]
  79. Newman O. 1972. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design New York: Macmillan [Google Scholar]
  80. Osgood DW. 2010. Osgood, D. Wayne, Janet K. Wilson, Jerald G. Bachman, Patrick M. O'Malley, and Lloyd D. Johnston: routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory FT Cullen, P Wilcox 675–79 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [Google Scholar]
  81. Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD. 1996. Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61:635–55 [Google Scholar]
  82. Ousey GC, Wilcox P, Brummel S. 2008. Déjà vu all over again: investigating temporal continuity of adolescent victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 24:307–35 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ousey GC, Wilcox P, Fisher BS. 2011. Something old, something new: revisiting competing hypotheses of the victimization-offending relationship among adolescents. J. Quant. Criminol. 27:53–84 [Google Scholar]
  84. Outlaw M, Ruback B, Britt C. 2002. Repeat and multiple victimizations: the role of individual and contextual factors. Violence Vict 17:187–204 [Google Scholar]
  85. Ozer MM, Engel RS. 2011. Revisiting the use of propensity score matching to understand the relationship between gang membership and violent victimization: a cautionary note. Justice Q 29:105–24 [Google Scholar]
  86. Peguero AA, Popp AM. 2012. Youth violence at school and the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. J. Crim. Justice 40:1–9 [Google Scholar]
  87. Peterson S, Lasky NV, Fisher BS, Wilcox P. 2017. Gendered opportunity and school-based victimization: an integrated approach. Youth Violence Juv. Justice. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1541204016680402 [Google Scholar]
  88. Piza EL, Caplan JM, Kennedy LW. 2014. Analyzing the influence of micro-level factors on the CCTV camera effect. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:237–64 [Google Scholar]
  89. Piza EL, Caplan JM, Kennedy LW, Gilchrist AM. 2015. The effects of merging proactive CCTV monitoring with directed police patrol: a randomized controlled trial. J. Exp. Criminol. 11:43–69 [Google Scholar]
  90. Pratt TC, Cullen FT. 2000. The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: a meta-analysis. Criminology 38:931–64 [Google Scholar]
  91. Pratt TC, Holtfreter K, Reisig MD. 2010. Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: extending the generality of routine activity theory. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 47:267–96 [Google Scholar]
  92. Pratt TC, Turanovic JJ. 2016. Lifestyle and routine activity theories revisited: The importance of “risk” to the study of victimizaiotn. Vict. Offenders 11:335–54 [Google Scholar]
  93. Pratt TC, Turanovic JJ, Fox KA, Wright KA. 2014. Self-control and victimization: a meta-analysis. Criminology 52:87–116 [Google Scholar]
  94. Pridemore WA, Grubesic TH. 2012a. A spatial analysis of the moderating effects of land use on the association between alcohol outlet density and violence in urban areas. Drug Alcohol Rev 31:385–93 [Google Scholar]
  95. Pridemore WA, Grubesic TH. 2012b. Community organization moderates the effect of alcohol outlet density on violence. Br. J. Sociol. 63:680–703 [Google Scholar]
  96. Rengert GF, Wasilchick J. 2000. Suburban Burglary Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  97. Reynald DM. 2011. Factors associated with the guardianship of places: assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and socio-demographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 48:110–42 [Google Scholar]
  98. Reynald DM. 2015. Environmental design and crime events. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 31:71–89 [Google Scholar]
  99. Reynald D, Averdijk M, Elffers H, Bernasco W. 2008. Do social barriers affect urban crime trips? The effects of ethnic and economic neighborhood compositions on the flow of crime in The Hague, The Netherlands. Built Environ 34:21–31 [Google Scholar]
  100. Reyns BW. 2011. Online routines and identify theft victimization. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 50:216–38 [Google Scholar]
  101. Reyns BW, Henson B, Fisher BS. 2011. Being pursued online: applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Crim. Justice Behav. 38:1149–69 [Google Scholar]
  102. Ridgeway G, MacDonald JM. 2017. Effect of rail transit on crime: a study of Los Angeles from 1988 to 2014. J. Quant. Criminol. 33:277–91 [Google Scholar]
  103. Roncek DW, LoBosco A. 1983. The effects of high schools on crime in their neighborhoods. Soc. Sci. Q. 64:598–613 [Google Scholar]
  104. Roncek DW, Maier PA. 1991. Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots.”. Criminology 29:725–53 [Google Scholar]
  105. Sacco VF, Kennedy LW. 2002. The Criminal Event: Perspective in Space and Time Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2nd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  106. Sampson RJ. 1987. Personal violence by strangers: an extension and test of the opportunity model of predatory victimization. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 78:327–56 [Google Scholar]
  107. Sampson RJ, Lauritsen JL. 1990. Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 27:110–39 [Google Scholar]
  108. Sampson RJ, Wooldredge JD. 1987. Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activities and opportunity models of predatory victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 3:371–93 [Google Scholar]
  109. Schreck CJ. 1999. Criminal victimization and low self-control: an extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Q 16:633–54 [Google Scholar]
  110. Schreck CJ, Miller JM, Gibson CL. 2003. Trouble in the school yard: a study of the risk factors of victimization at school. Crime Delinq 49:460–84 [Google Scholar]
  111. Schreck CJ, Stewart EA, Fisher BS. 2006. Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: a longitudinal analysis using panel data. J. Quant. Criminol. 22:319–40 [Google Scholar]
  112. Schwartz MD, Pitts VL. 1995. Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to explaining sexual assault. Justice Q 12:9–31 [Google Scholar]
  113. Sherman LW, Gartin PR, Buerger ME. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activity and the criminology of place. Criminology 27:27–55 [Google Scholar]
  114. Smith WR, Frazee SG, Davison EL. 2000. Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology 38:489–523 [Google Scholar]
  115. Spano R, Freilich JD, Bolland J. 2008. Gang membership, gun carrying, and employment: applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Q 25:381–410 [Google Scholar]
  116. Steffensmeier DJ, Ulmer JT. 2015. Taking criminal opportunity seriously: an actor-centered approach. Challenging Criminological Theory: The Legacy of Ruth Rosner Kornhauser—Advances in Criminological Theory 19 FT Cullen, P Wilcox, RJ Sampson, BD Dooley 361–97 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publ. [Google Scholar]
  117. Stucky TD, Ottensmann JR. 2009. Land use and violent crime. Criminology 47:1223–64 [Google Scholar]
  118. Summers L, Johnson SD. 2017. Does the configuration of the street network influence where outdoor serious violence takes place? Using space syntax to test crime pattern theory. J. Quant. Criminol. 33:397–420 [Google Scholar]
  119. Svensson R, Oberwittler D. 2010. It's not the time they spend, it's what they do: the interaction between delinquent friends and unstructured routine activity on delinquency. Findings from two countries. J. Crim. Justice 38:1006–14 [Google Scholar]
  120. Taylor TJ, Freng A, Esbensen F, Peterson D. 2008. Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: the importance of lifestyles and routine activities. J. Interpers. Violence 23:1441–64 [Google Scholar]
  121. Taylor TJ, Peterson D, Esbensen F, Freng A. 2007. Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 44:351–80 [Google Scholar]
  122. Tillyer MS. 2015. General multilevel opportunity and crime events. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 31:107–21 [Google Scholar]
  123. Tillyer MS, Fisher BS, Wilcox P. 2011. The effects of school crime prevention on students’ violent victimization, risk perception and fear of crime: a multilevel opportunity perspective. Justice Q 28:249–77 [Google Scholar]
  124. Tillyer MS, Gialopsos BM, Wilcox P. 2016. The short-term repeat sexual victimization of adolescents at school. Crime Delinq 62:81–106 [Google Scholar]
  125. Tillyer MS, Tillyer R. 2014. Violence in context: a multilevel analysis of victim injury in robbery incidents. Justice Q 31:767–91 [Google Scholar]
  126. Tillyer MS, Wilcox P, Fissel ER. 2017. Violence in schools: repeat victimization, low self-control, and the mitigating influence of school efficacy. J. Quant. Criminol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9347-8 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Tillyer MS, Wilcox P, Gialopsos BM. 2010. Adolescent school-based sexual victimization: exploring the role of opportunity in a gender-specific multilevel analysis. J. Crim. Justice 38:1071–81 [Google Scholar]
  128. Tseloni A, Wittebrood K, Farrell G, Pease K. 2004. Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands: a cross-study comparative test of routine activities and lifestyle theories. Br. J. Criminol. 44:66–91 [Google Scholar]
  129. Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC. 2014. “Can't stop, won't stop”: self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:29–56 [Google Scholar]
  130. Turanovic JJ, Pratt TC, Piquero AR. 2017. Structural constraints, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9334-5 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. van Gelder JL, Averdijk M, Eisner M, Ribaud D. 2015. Unpacking the victim-offender overlap: on role differentiation and socio-psychological characteristics. J. Quant. Criminol. 31:653–75 [Google Scholar]
  132. Weerman FM, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN, Pauwels LJR. 2016. Gender differences in delinquency and situational action theory: a partial test. Justice Q 33:1182–209 [Google Scholar]
  133. Weerman FM, Wilcox P, Sullivan CS. 2017. The short-term dynamics of peers and delinquent behavior: an analysis of bi-weekly changes within a high school student network. J. Quant. Criminol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9340-2 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang SM. 2004. Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42:283–321 [Google Scholar]
  135. Weisburd D, Eck JE, Braga AA, Telep CW, Cave B. et al. 2016. Place Matters: Criminology for the Twenty-First Century New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  136. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang SM. 2012. The Criminology of Place: Street Segments and Our Understanding of the Crime Problem New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  137. Welsh BC, Farrington DP. 2009a. Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance and Crime Prevention New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  138. Welsh BC, Farrington DP. 2009b. Public area CCTV and crime prevention: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Q 26:716–45 [Google Scholar]
  139. Welsh BC, Farrington DP, Taheri SA. 2015. Effectiveness and social costs of public area surveillance for crime prevention. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 11:111–30 [Google Scholar]
  140. Welsh WN. 2001. Effects of student and school factors on five measures of school disorder. Justice Q 18:911–47 [Google Scholar]
  141. Wikström POH. 2004. Crime as alternative: towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. Beyond Empiricism: Institutions and Intentions in the Study of Crime—Advances in Criminological Theory 13 J McCord 1–37 New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publ. [Google Scholar]
  142. Wikström POH. 2006. Individuals, settings, and acts of crime: situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. The Explanation of Crime: Context, Mechanisms, and Development POH Wikström, RJ Sampson 61–107 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  143. Wikström POH. 2010. Situational action theory. The Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory FT Cullen, P Wilcox 1000–8 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [Google Scholar]
  144. Wikström POH, Oberwittler D, Treiber K, Hardie B. 2012. Breaking Rules: The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People's Urban Crime Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  145. Wikström POH, Treiber K. 2007. The role of self-control in crime causation: beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime. . Eur. J. Criminol. 4:237–64 [Google Scholar]
  146. Wikström POH, Treiber K. 2009. Violence as situational action. Int. J. Confl. Violence 3:75–96 [Google Scholar]
  147. Wikström POH, Treiber K. 2016. Social disadvantage and crime: a criminological puzzle. Am. Behav. Sci. 60:1232–59 [Google Scholar]
  148. Wilcox P, Cullen FT, Feldmeyer B. 2017. Communities and Crime: An Enduring American Challenge Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  149. Wilcox P, Gialopsos BM. 2015. Crime-event criminology: an overview. J. Contemp. Criminol. 31:4–11 [Google Scholar]
  150. Wilcox P, Gialopsos BM, Land KC. 2013. Multilevel criminal opportunity. The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory FT Cullen, P Wilcox 579–601 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  151. Wilcox P, Land KC, Hunt SA. 2003. Criminal Circumstance: A Dynamic, Multicontextual Criminal Opportunity Theory New York: Aldine de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  152. Wilcox P, Madensen TD, Tillyer MS. 2007. Guardianship in context: implications for burglary risk and prevention. Criminology 45:771–804 [Google Scholar]
  153. Wilcox P, Sullivan CJ, Jones S, van Gelder JL. 2014. Personality and opportunity: an integrated approach to victimization and offending. Crim. Justice Behav. 41:880–901 [Google Scholar]
  154. Wilcox P, Tillyer MS. 2018. Place and neighborhood contexts. Connecting Crime to Place: New Directions in Theory and Policy—Advances in Criminological Theory 22 D Weisburd, JE Eck New York: Routledge press [Google Scholar]
  155. Wilcox P, Tillyer MS, Fisher BS. 2009. Gendered opportunity? Adolescent school-based victimization. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 46:245–69 [Google Scholar]
  156. Wilcox Rountree P, Land KC, Miethe TD. 1994. Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: a hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology 32:387–414 [Google Scholar]
  157. Wright RT, Decker SH. 1997. Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  158. Wu J, Pyrooz DC. 2016. Uncovering the pathways between gang membership and violent victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 32:531–59 [Google Scholar]
  159. Xu J, Griffiths E. 2017. Shooting on the street: measuring the spatial influence of physical features on gun violence in a bounded street network. J. Quant. Criminol. 33:237–53 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error