Examining the Impact of Gated Communities on Residential Robbery Rates: A Study Analysis

Introduction

Rising standards of life, life expectancy, and the sheer desire of individuals to enjoy life drive them to choose their residence and its location wisely. For this reason, the gated communities grow in size, meaning that more people prefer to live in secure areas. However, after reading the findings of Jacobs and Addington in their 2016 study, Gating and Residential Robbery, I realize that such perceptions of safety can be misleading. Gated communities have minimal differences from non-gated communities in terms of robbery rates. Yet, it can be explained through factors such as false perception of security and robbers’ benefits from gating structures.

Central Arguments

The study’s authors focus on many concepts related to safety, robbery, and community perspectives. According to the null finding, there are no substantial variations in robbery rates between gated and ungated communities. However, the authors provide several arguments and offer statistics and facts. For example, among the arguments is that “gating may encourage residents to assume that crime prevention comes because of the gating itself” (Jacobs & Addington, 2016, p.29).

As a result, this can raise susceptibility to criminal activity, decrease rather than build collective efficacy, and foster a false sense of security (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). In other words, if residents rely on an enclosed perimeter for protection, they could doubt the necessity of working together to ward off offenders or monitor the environment in general (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). As a result, through such arguments, readers can grasp the perceptions of gated community’s perceptions and the true reasons for a lack of difference in robbery rates.

Another argument offered by the authors is focused on the concepts of privatization and celerity. Privatizing social space by gating may give criminals the impression that there is less chance of being caught and less time to do so, giving them more confidence to commit crimes (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). Although gating does not affect the probability of official recognition, it may slow down the alleged speed at which sanctions threats are presented to offenders after a crime has been committed (Jacobs & Addington, 2016).

In simple terms, gating does not have to stop the law enforcement. It simply needs to be delayed long enough for criminals to think there is a window of opportunity to act (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). Therefore, as seen from the arguments, gated communities offer more weaknesses that criminals use to their advantage.

Data Sources and Concepts

In order to produce credible arguments for the paper, the authors rely on statistics. The National Crime Victimization Survey is used to compare robbery incidence and experiences among gated and non-gated communities to answer the study questions (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). A categorized collection of American residences is used to obtain NCVS data (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). Every sampled family does a telephone or in-person interview to inquire about any possible victimizations that may have occurred within the previous six months (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). Such an approach allowed the authors to collect the residents’ subjective first-hand experiences, insights, and perceptions.

Additionally, the authors focused on extended information, collecting information for a decade, making the results more reliable. Researchers begin with 2004, the initial year that the NCVS acquired data on gated communities, and 2013, the most recent year for which the public usage files are still available (Jacobs & Addington, 2016).

Specific factors were taken into account to evaluate the characteristics of robberies in both types of communities. These involved the use of a weapon, the time of the incident, the victim-offender relationship, and the offender’s level of intoxication (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). These parameters produce an unweighted aggregate of 630 residential robberies (Jacobs & Addington, 2016). The concepts of natural surveillance, collective efficacy, territorial reinforcement, and defensible space are used to analyze the potential mechanisms through which gating may influence residential robbery.

Personal Lines of Reasoning

The results of this study call for more investigation on a number of domestic security and gating-related topics. Understanding the complexities of residential security may need a closer look at how various socioeconomic characteristics affect robbery susceptibility. A more comprehensive understanding of methods for crime prevention may be provided by comprehending the interactions between income levels, level of education, and employment status.

Additionally, the internal connection of the offenders plays a pivotal role in robbery incidence, such as when criminals have connections with the victims if “they ‘partied’ or ‘hung out’ together prior to the offense” (Jacobs & Addington, 2016, p.25). Such a piece of thought highlights the importance of understanding the nature and composition of gated enclosures for further development of protective measures. Finally, a deeper exploration of neighborhood watch programs within both types of communities is warranted. Understanding the prevalence and effectiveness of these programs can provide valuable lessons for promoting collective vigilance and cooperation among residents, ultimately contributing to enhanced security levels.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Finally, several can be outlined when observing the study’s strengths and weaknesses. The first strength is that this is “the first study of its kind to undertake this analysis on a national (US) level” (Jacobs & Addington, 2016, p.30). Exploring the growth of gated communities and a misconception of their full safety contributes to the field and demonstrates the necessity to explore the topic further.

Other research implications include the controversial role of residential gating and fencing companies. The authors offer insights into such companies by saying that they “thrive on the assumption that predatory crimes such as robbery can be deterred or prevented outright by the product they sell” (Jacobs & Addington, 2016, p.33). Moreover, the exploration of various concepts, such as natural surveillance and collective efficacy, adds depth to the analysis. Therefore, offering insights into the topic of robbery in communities, as well as misconceptions built on a significant body of statistics, are the study’s main strengths.

Nevertheless, several weaknesses of the study might be addressed in future works. First, NCVS data cannot tell readers if or how much the major access points in gated communities were secured during the crime, which could influence robbery rates. The NCVS statistics are further restricted in that sub-national estimates cannot be provided, which restricts the generalizability of the findings. Lastly, the NCVS statistics prevent researchers from determining if the accused perpetrator or offenders had a personal connection to the neighborhood where the robbery occurred. Therefore, I would consider such factors when analyzing the statistics related to crime to offer credible and reliable data.

Conclusion

In summary, robbery rates in gated communities are hardly different from those in non-gated communities. However, this difference may be explained by thieves’ benefiting from gating arrangements and residents having a false sense of security. The first point is that gating can lead residents to believe that the gating itself prevents crime. Another argument is that by privatizing social space through gating, criminals may believe they are less likely to be caught.

The authors of the research depend on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey in order to present convincing arguments. It may be necessary to take a deeper look at how various socioeconomic factors impact robbery vulnerability to grasp the complexity of residential security fully. The study’s key advantages include insights and misunderstandings that are based on a sizable body of information. The study’s flaws are related to the inadequate evaluation of elements like ties to the victim, sub-national estimations, and access points.

Reference

Jacobs, B. A., & Addington, L. A. (2016). Gating and residential robbery. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 18, 19-37. Web.