Testing Academic Notions of Architectural Design for Burglary Prevention - How Burglars Perceive Cues of Vulnerability in Suburban Apartment Complexes (A Methodological Review) (From Link Between Crime and the Built Environment, Volume 2, P C489-C499, 1980, by Tetsuro Motoyama et al - See NCJ-79544)

• NCJ Number: 79588
• Author(s): T Motoyama; P Fingerman; H Rubenstein; P Hartjens
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 11 pages
• Corporate Author: American Institutes for Research
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche from NCJRS as NCJ-79544.

Annotation

This review assesses George Phelan's investigation to determine if burglars perceive and are deterred by the specific characteristics of built environment hypothesized as deterrents by Oscar Newman ('defensible space').

Abstract

The study design was essentially descriptive and explanatory. Interview data were collected from convicted burglars, who were shown slides and then accompanied to apartments, where they assessed the physical characteristics of the apartments regarding their vulnerability to burglary. The physical characteristics identified by the burglars were then compared to Newman's checklist of 'defensible space' characteristics. The remainder of the research design evolved from the data collected from the interviews and physical assessments. Also conducted was an empirical analysis of the structural characteristics of a sample of 250 previously burglarized apartments. The study did not include control groups, stratified samples, randomization of stimuli, or other experimental controls. Limited hypothesis testing was involved. The study concluded that burglars do not perceive 'defensible space' as it is defined academically. They consider a less detailed, more obvious set of opportunity criteria than those defined by Newman. It is recommended that 'defensible space' theory be revised accordingly. However, the research design is inadequate in several ways, so that the conclusions cannot be supported. First, the study does not independently test the stimuli presented to the burglars to determine whether there exist environmental cues that might suggest vulnerability in defensible space theory. Second, the small sample size, the confounding factors, and the lack of rigor in analyzing data from onsite observations weaken the study to the point that the recommendation for revision of defensible space theory is unjustified. Further, the study is based on too many indirect measurement devices and stimuli.