Routine activity theory

Other social changes such as college enrollment, female labor participation, urbanization, suburbanization, and lifestyles all contribute to the supply of opportunities and, subsequently, the occurrence of crime.

[1][6] The analytic focus of routine activity theory takes a macro-level view and emphasizes broad-scale shifts in the patterns of victim and offender behavior.

[9] A guardian would not necessarily have to be a policeman or a security guard but rather a person whose proximity or presence would lower the chances of a crime happening.

[10] Criminologist Lynch (1987), using "domain-specific" models, demonstrates that occupation-related activities generally have a stronger impact on the risk of victimization at work than sociodemographic characteristics.

Victimization of workers at work will decline if mobility, public accessibility, and handling of money as part of the occupational role are reduced.

In A Routine Activity Theory Explanation for Women's Stalking Victimizations, criminologists Mustaine & Tewksbury (1999) conducted a self-administered study in the third quarter of 1996 to 861 college or university female students from nine postsecondary institutes from eight states of the US.

The study reveals that women's victimization risk of stalking can be explained by individual lifestyle behaviors, including employment, location of residence, substance use (drug and alcohol) and self-protection.

The 30.6% increase in employed and married female's participation rates not only subjects these women to greater risk of attack on their way to and from work, but also leaves their home and car less guarded from illegal entry.

Using university computer attack data, Maimon et al. (2013) reveal evidence supporting routine activity theory.