Skip to main content
Log in

Measures of opportunity and the calculation of the arson rate: The connection between operationalization and association

Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The crime of arson is complicated in part because of the motives associated with the offense and the vast assortment of combustible objects or targets deliberately burned in urban areas. This research attempts to conceptualize the crime in light of criminal law and demonstrates that arson occupies a rather unique position. Although classified as a property crime, the legislative intent appears to focus on the protection of human life. Moreover, legislative developments have brought us to the point where burning almost any property is designated arson. There is a growing concern over the incidence of arson, but there has been little discussion of how to calculate the arson rate when the targets of opportunity are not known. The exploratory research presented here addresses the structure of arson rates by using an assortment of indirect and direct measures of opportunity as denominators in the calculation of the arson rate. Factor analysis reduces a 27×27 correlation matrix to six significant factors and demonstrates that some measures share the same underlying rate structure. By using a factorbase scale (dependent variable) for each factor and a set of independent variables, regression analysis reveals that there are differences in the direction of association, the degree of association, and the types of independent variables that associate with different measures of the arson rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Law Institute (1962).Model Penal Code—Tentative Drafts Nos. 11, 12, and 23, Proposed Final Draft No. 1, American Law Institute, Philadelphia, Pa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amir, M. (1971).Patterns in Forcible Rape, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boggs, S. L. (1965). Urban crime patterns.Am. Soc. Rev. 30: 899–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, J. F.,et al. (1983). The nature and magnitude of arson. In Rapkin, C. (ed.),The Social and Economic Consequences of Residential Fires, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brace, T. (1981). An analysis of arson in a socio-economic framework: Revisited 1976–1978, conclusion.Fire Arson Invest. 31(3): 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, R. L., and Hill, K. Q. (1976). The criminal image of the city and urban crime patterns.Soc. Sci. Q. 57: 597–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. V. (1984). Opportunity-based crime rates.Br. J. Crim. 24(1): 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A. (1936).The Law of Arson, Dennis, Buffalo, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, R. N. (1981).Crime and Environment, Croom Helm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, M. L., Gibbs, J. P., and Jensen, G. F. (1977). Conventional and special crime and delinquency rates.J. Crim. Law Crim. 68: 404–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisbie, D. W.,et al. (1977).Crime in Minneapolis, Governor's Commission on Crime Prevention and Control, St. Paul, Minn.

  • Gibbs, J. P., and Erickson, M. L. (1976). Crime rates of American cities in an ecological context.Am. J. Soc. 82: 605–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, P. (1981). Fire-cause patterns for different socioeconomic neighborhoods in Toledo, Ohio.Fire J. 74(3): 52–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries, K. (1981). Alternative denominators in conventional crime rates. In Bratingham, P., and Brantingham, P. (eds.),Environmental Criminology, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif., pp. 147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries, K. (1980).Crime and the Environment, Charles Thomas, Springfield, Ill.

    Google Scholar 

  • International City Manager's Association (1967). Municipal Fire Administration, Chicago.

  • Karter, M. J., and Donner, A. (1978). The effect of demographics on fire rates.Fire J. 72(1): 51–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., and Mueller, C. W. (1978).Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, J. R. (1970).Crime, Police, and Race Relations, Oxford University Press for the Institute of Race Relations, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lottier, S. (1938). Distribution of criminal offenses in sectional regions.J. Crim. Law Crim. Pol. Sci. 29(3): 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, J. M. (1960). Many motivations are behind acts of the arsonist.FBI Law Enforce. Bull. 29(7): 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, F. H. (1963).Crimes of Violence, Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, T. P. (1957).The Criminal Area, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Board of Fire Underwriters (1956).Suggestions for Arson Investigators, National Board of Fire Underwriters, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Normandeau, A. (1969). Robbery in Philadelphia and London.Br. J. Crim. 9: 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettiway, L. E. (1983). Arson and American city types.J. Environ. Sys. 13(2): 157–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettiway, L. E. (1984). Retaliatory arsons: The demographic and environmental contexts of revenge, Unpublished manuscript. Presented at the 1984 Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, P. D. (1973). Risk-related crime rates and crime patterns.Proc. Assoc. Am. Geog. 5: 221–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyle, G. F. (1976). Spatial and temporal aspects of crime in Cleveland, Ohio.Am. Behav. Sci. 20: 175–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengert, G. R. (1981). Burglary in Philadelphia: A critique of an opportunity structure model. In Brantingham, P., and Brantingham, P. (eds.),Environmental Criminology, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif., pp. 189–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reppetto, T. A. (1974).Residential Crime, Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rider, A. O. (1980). The firesetter: A psychological profile.Fire Arson Invest. 31(2): 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, C. (1939). Research techniques in human ecology. In Young, P. (ed.),Scientific Social Surveys and Social Research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 406–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, R. F. (1980). Criminal opportunities and crime rates. In Fienberg, S. E., and Reiss, A. (eds.),Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., pp. 18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternlieb, G., and Burchell, R. W. (1983). Fires in abandoned buildings. In Rapkin, C. (ed.),The Social and Economic Consequences of Residential Fires, Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass., pp. 261–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (1975).1974 Wildfiire Statistics, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, I., and Okihiro, N. (1978).Burglary: The Victim and the Public, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pettiway, L.E. Measures of opportunity and the calculation of the arson rate: The connection between operationalization and association. J Quant Criminol 1, 241–268 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064635

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064635

Key words

Navigation