Environmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research... Show moreEnvironmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective to assess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibility and boundary height have significant effects, and that street type and indicators of antisocial behaviour also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level variables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue that both house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of the risk of burglary. Environmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective to assess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibility and boundary height have significant effects, and that street type and indicators of antisocial behaviour also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level variables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue that both house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of the risk of burglary.Environmental research on residential properties’ vulnerability to burglary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets in which they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective to assess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibility and boundary height have significant effects, and that street type and indicators of antisocial behaviour also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level variables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue that both house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of the risk of burglary.glary usually focuses either on the houses that have been burgled or on the streets inwhich they are located. This research explores both house and street level in a fixed-effects model and, using tangible CPTED measures, takes a wider perspective toassess vulnerability to burglary. The results indicate that dwelling type, visibilityand boundary height have sign ificant effects, and that street type and indicators ofantisocial behavi our also have strong effects. Furthermore, these street-level vari-ables appear to strengthen some of the house-level vulnerabilities. We argue thatboth house and street levels should therefore be included in any assessment of therisk of burglar y Show less
