Prof Jan Van Dijk Household Security and European Trends in Burglary Copenhagen, March 20, 2013.
-
Upload
curtis-sutton -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Prof Jan Van Dijk Household Security and European Trends in Burglary Copenhagen, March 20, 2013.
Burglary victimization rate, ICVS 2005
3
1.7
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4
Sweden *
Spain *
Finland *
Japan
Austria *
Germ any *
Norway
Netherlands *
Portugal *
Poland
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Iceland
France *
Switzerland
Hungary *
Luxem bourg *
Belgium *
Greece *
Canada
Italy *
Ireland *
USA
Estonia
Aus tralia
Bulgaria
Denm ark *
Mexico
New Zealand
England & Wales *
Average
Burglary Attempted burglary
1.8
* Source: van Dijk, Manchin, van Kes teren & Hideg (2007) The Burden of Crim e in the EU, A com parative Analys is of the European Survey of Crim e and Safety (EUICS 2005). Gallup-Europe, Brussels
The Danish exception
Over the past ten years household burglaries have been decreasing across the Western world according to police records and surveys
But not in Denmark !
The Danish rate of police-recorded burglaries of 1.939 per 100.000 in 2009 is the highest rate ever recorded by UNODC anywhere in the world
Diagnosing the Danish exception
Most Western countries have by 2005 come full circle: greater opportunities led to higher burglary rates, led to more fear of burglary, led to improved security, led to reduced opportunities, led to lower burglary rates (led to reduced fear……..).
Hypothesis: In Denmark the spontaneous feedback loop of improved security has been relatively slow
7
% of public thinking a burglary in their house in the coming year is likely
8
1989 surveys
1992 surveys
1996 surveys
2000 surveys
2004/05 surveys
Italy . 38 . . 43
France 36 . 53 44 38
England & Wales
35 45 41 33 35
Portugal . . . 58 35
Belgium 28 31 . 45 33
Ireland . . . . 33
Spain 41 . . . 26
Switzerland 46 . 29 27 26
Poland . 40 24 26 25
Canada 33 33 30 29 25
Germany 54 . . . 23
Hungary . . . . 23
Austria . . 13 . 21
Norway 21 . . . 21
Scotland 30 . 28 23 21
Netherlands 28 28 27 19 18
Sweden . 34 16 16 17
USA 31 . 23 16 16
Denmark . . . 20 14
Finland 9 14 11 13 na
Average* 35 41 29 31 29
Risk assessment of the public and actual victimization rates in 2004
9
0
20
40
60
80
0 5 10 15
Burglary
Ris
k a
sse
ssm
en
t
(sca
le 1
to
10
, h
igh
is le
ss c
orr
up
tio
n)
Maputo (outlier)
Sao Paulo
Istanbul
Lima
Johannesburg
Rio de Janeiro
USA
Denmark
Japan
Sw eden r=-.54n=35p<0.05
Not a Care in the World
Considering the actual burglary risks in Denmark, concern about burglary should have been two times more common than it is.
Lack of concern prevents Danish households from investing in their security?
10
% households with security locks
11
1989
surveys 1992
surveys 1996
surveys 2000
surveys 2004/05 surveys
Netherlands 59 68 70 72
Germany . . . 61*
England & Wales 68 68 69 60*
USA 58 53 60
Austria . 37 . 56*
Ireland . . . 54*
Italy 36 . . 52*
Portugal . . 36 49*
Spain . . . 45*
Belgium 25 . 50 45*
Sweden 44 38 43 44*
Greece . . . 44*
Estonia 2 18 23 40
Norway . . . 37
France . 34 40 34*
Denmark . . 21 31*
Finland 20 37 29*
Switzerland . 29
Poland 15 15 17 18
Average** 38 43 43 45
LEVELS OF HOME SECURITY IN EIGHT WESTERN NATIONS in 2004
High-grade door locks, 2004 (%)
Burglar alarm, 2004 (%)
England and Wales 60 41
Netherlands 78 15
Canada 48 28
Germany 63 14
Sweden 46 16
Estonia 40 7
Switzerland 29 5
Denmark 32 9
19 april 2023 12
Rates of home security in 2004 and burglary victimization trends between 2004 and 2010 in eight countries
High-grade door locks, 2004 (%)
Burglar alarm, 2004 (%)
Burglary rate,2004 (%)
Burglary rate, 2010 (%) Change burglary rate (%-point)
England and Wales 60 41 3.5 1.5 - 2.0
Netherlands 78 15 1.3 0.8 - 0.5
Canada 48 28 2,0 1.3 - 0.7
Germany 63 14 0.9 1.2 +0.3
Sweden 46 16 0.7 1.0 +0.3
Estonia 40 7 2.5 3.0 +0.5
Switzerland 29 5 1.1 1.9 +0.8
Denmark 32 9 2.7 3.6 +0.9
19 april 2023 13
Levels of household security in 2004 (high grade locks and alarms) and changes in burglary rates between 2004 and 2010
19 april 2023 14
Trends in the use of burglar alarms and trends in burglary vicimization since 1992 by income quartiles in twelve Western nations (ICVS 1989-
2005)
percentages secured percentages victimised
19 april 2023 16
Policy interventions Why are Dutch houses the best secured in
Europe ?
Regulatory securitization:
1. Security certification since 1990 promoted by police (Politie Keurmerk)
2. Mandatory security standards incorporated in national Building Code in 1999
17
Security certification of housing situation
At the initiative of the police both existing and newly built houses can be certified, looking at:
• Urban environment (recreational facilities, routing) • Immediate environment (lightening)• Building (preferably not more than 5 levels,
surveillance)• Dwelling (security locks, fire alarms)
18
Effectiveness
• More than 500.000 housing units have been certified (50.000 per year)
• Burglary risk per unit was reduced by 90% Source: De Effectiviteit van het PKVW, DSP Group, 2004
• Reduced fear of burglary
• Reduced insurance premiums
19
• Change in building regulations in the Netherlands in 1999
• All new-built homes must have burglary-proof windows and doors, regardless of their vulnerability
20
Natural experiment in regulation of built-in security
Homes built under old Building
Code
Transition
periodHomes built under new Building
Code
Year of construction of the home
Hom
es
meeti
ng
new
re
gu
lati
ons
(%)
COMPARE
The impact of mandatory security on domestic burglary in NL; source: Vollaard & Van Ours, 2010
19 april 2023 22
Benefits outweigh costs
• Benefits over lifespan of home: €560 p/h
(less losses , less expenses for police etcetera)
• Costs of measures+ enforcement: €430 p/h
• Benefits far exceed the costs
• A country which introduces mandatory security standards increases its welfare
• Such country will also reduce widening security gap between income groups
23