Tourism, Security and Safety From Theory to Practice

What Do We Know about Robbery?
Research on robbery has explored a variety of issues including the notions that vic-
timization may be partially explained by exposure to certain situations (Gottfredson,
1976), personal characteristics of the victim (Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garafalo,
1978; Blose, 1978), and the victim’s gender, age, and race (Hindelang and
McDermott, 1981). Other issues explored in the study of robbery have included
trends, patterns, and types of robbers and robbery (Roebuck and Cadwallader, 1961;
Normandeau, 1968). Moreover, street robbers have been characterized in the crimi-
nological literature as “semi-professional,” “unskilled,” “novice,” “addict,” “amateur,”
“alcoholic,” and “garden variety.” Conklin’s (1972) influential typology of robbery
focuses on the robber’s commitment to robbery as a major source of livelihood. The
most common type of robber for Conklin is the 
opportunist robber
. This type of rob-
ber appears to act randomly; however, considerations such as victim vulnerability,
potential for getting money, location suitability, and escape opportunities indicate
some planning and thought occurs before the commission of the crime. The fact that
planning does occur has been consistently identified in other research (Petersilia,
Greenwood, and Lavin, 1978; Harper, 2000a). Planning in street robbery appears to
be rudimentary and most likely occurs just before the robbery event (Lejeune, 1977).
The classification of a robber as an opportunist is also understandable from the
routine activities perspective
(Cohen and Felson, 1979) that emphasizes the struc-
tural features of opportunity largely apart from the motivation of either offender or
victim, even though the victim and a motivated offender is part of the model. In
other words, robberies occur when victim and offender occupy the same physical
space at the same time without the presence of capable guardianship. The oppor-
tunist robber is also understandable from the 
rational choice perspective
(Heineke,
1978; Cornish and Clarke, 1986; Eide, Aasness, and Skjerpen, 1999), which sug-
gests that opportunities are created by the choices offenders make.
Previous research has found tourists to be overrepresented as victims of street
robbery and larceny/theft (Harper, 1983; Chesney-Lind and Lind, 1986;
Stangeland, 1998; de Albuquerque and McElroy, 1999). This suggests that tourists
may be singled out and targeted for victimization by the criminal element. Other
researchers have noted that the vulnerability of tourists is greater in areas already
experiencing high levels of conventional crime (Schiebler, Crotts, and Hollinger,
1996). Put another way, increasing the number of tourists in a high crime area will
likely increase the number of tourists’ victimizations.
Researchers have also noted that tourist locations tend to be 
hot spots
for crimes
against tourists (Miethe, Stafford, and Long, 1987; Roncek and Maier, 1991; Ryan,
1993; Harper, 2000b). Crimes against tourists will cluster in locations near hotels,
motels, bars, restaurants, and other tourist attractions. New Orleans’ Vieux Carré
(French Quarter) is a prime example of a hot spot. The hot spot perspective focuses
H7898_Ch07.qxd 8/24/05 8:08 AM Page 126

---

on a physical location that places offender and potential victim in contiguity, thus
increasing the probability and the opportunity for the crime to occur.
To understand the tourist–victim pattern requires a thorough examination of the
situationally grounded experience of both the tourist and the criminal predator in
the tourism context. To grasp the meaning of this pattern requires an examination
of the behavioral and cultural context of the actors and the action as it unfolds
(Becker, 1963).