Changing the Beat

Abstract

Opportunities for crime are related to specific times and places. However, studies on alcohol-related violence have mostly focused on the role of neighborhood-level factors over large areas and long periods of time, meaning that we know surprisingly little about how people’s interactions with the environment at specific times and places affect alcohol-related violence. In order to explore opportunities for violence in public places with high alcohol outlet densities, we conducted a multiple case study of two nighttime leisure microenvironments in Bogota, Colombia. Based on more than 150 hrs of participant observation in each site during nighttime activity over 4 months, we characterized each setting in terms of physical risk factors, actor heterogeneity, incidents of aggression, alcohol use dynamics and routines, and the intervention of different types of guardianship in these contexts. Results show that, despite similarities in the physical characteristics of the environment and alcohol availability, there are important differences in place-based dynamics that increase or decrease opportunities for violence and crime. We discuss how our results contribute to the development of opportunity theories and conclude with policy implications and opportunities for intervention.

Keywords

Introduction

When looking to inform crime prevention, studying situational factors is key in understanding opportunities for crime. So far, however, the study of opportunities for alcohol-related violence in nighttime leisure zones has focused on the role of neighborhood-level factors (such as land use, alcohol outlet density, and alcohol outlet business hours) in medium to large urban areas (Grubesic & Pridemore, 2011; Lipton & Gruenewald, 2002; Schofield & Denson, 2013). These studies have greatly contributed to our understanding of the occurrence of violent crime and delinquency at city and national levels in many countries (Day, Breetzke, Kingham, & Campbell, 2012; Parker et al., 2011; Rossow & Norström, 2012). They have also been used to evaluate the success or failure of legislation and wide-level policies aimed at reducing alcohol-related crime (Trolldal, Haggård, & Guldbrandsson, 2013). However, this research has disregarded that levels of violence can be different within areas of concentrated crime.

The purpose of this article is to provide empirical evidence on the role of place-based dynamics in creating opportunities for crime. We argue that place-based dynamics, and especially the role of people’s behavior in public places where alcohol is available, can help explain differences in violence between streets. Using a qualitative multiple case study, we focused on the opportunities for violence in a popular nighttime leisure zone in Bogota, Colombia, by examining both neighborhood-level factors and place-based dynamics around alcohol consumption in two microenvironments. We used participant observation in order to obtain detailed information about how the physical space (both public and private) is used by the patrons of alcohol outlets during peak consumption times. Our empirical study contributes to the current discussion regarding alcohol-related violence in public places and opens new research opportunities to examine applications of opportunity theories to these settings.

Literature Review

The relationship between alcohol and violent behavior has long been established (Pridemore & Grubesic, 2012; Schofield & Denson, 2013). Although there is some debate over the role of alcohol in violent incidents, alcohol consumption is currently not considered a cause of violence, but rather a risk or contributing factor whose effect depends on individual characteristics, the circumstances of alcohol intake, and cultural expectations (World Health Organization, 2006).

Alcohol is present in many violent crimes. Previous research has associated the use of alcohol to the occurrence of street fights (Pridemore & Grubesic, 2012), harassment and/or sexual abuse, homicide, assault, and criminal damage (Bromley & Nelson, 2002), as well as criminal victimization for both genders (Popovici, Homer, Fang, & French, 2012). Official statistics show that this is the case for many countries; for example, according to recent Crime Victimization Surveys, 53% of victims of violent crimes in the United Kingdom and 26% in the United States believed the offender to be under the influence of alcohol (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007; Office for National Statistics, 2015). In Colombia, official reports establish that many street fights occur when the offender, the victim, or both are under the influence of alcohol (National Police, 2013).

In order to examine the occurrence of alcohol-related violence, many studies have drawn on opportunity theories within the field of environmental criminology, such as crime pattern theory (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993) and routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979). These theories are based on the assumptions that opportunity plays a role in causing all crime, that the occurrence of specific crimes depends upon opportunities concentrated in times and places, and that opportunities are specific to the crime (Felson & Clarke, 1998). Opportunity theories have provided a coherent and growing understanding of where and when violence occurs, a central issue of current inquiry in criminology (Braga & Weisburd, 2010).

Violence in nighttime leisure zones

The idea that crimes cluster in small areas of the city has been well documented (Braga & Weisburd, 2010). Among these, high-activity areas such as nighttime leisure zones are thought to create particularly numerous opportunities for crime. When discussing high-activity areas, Brantingham and Brantingham (1995, 1998) differentiated between crime generators and crime attractors. Crime generators are “places that attract large volumes of people, generating criminal opportunities in the process,” whereas crime attractors refer to “places notorious for providing opportunities for crime” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1998, p. 271). While in the former, people who have no original intentions of committing a crime will take advantage of crime opportunities available in a setting, in the latter case, people will travel to these locations to commit specific crimes. Areas with high alcohol outlet densities are considered crime attractors (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1995).

The study of crime opportunity in places also led Brantingham and Brantingham (1995) to suggest that crime does not only occur at locations where people travel to and from (nodes) but also on routes between those nodes (paths) and boundaries of areas where people develop their daily activities (edges). Empirical research has provided support for these ideas, and findings show that violent crimes occur in semiprivate spaces such as pubs, clubs, and bars, especially on weekends (Graham, Bernards, Osgood, & Wells, 2006; Nelson, Bromley, & Thomas, 2001). In Watt, Purdie, Roche, and McClure’s (2006) study, the drinking setting (i.e., drinking at licensed premises), and not the quantity or type of alcohol consumed, was significantly associated with sustaining an intentional injury. In addition, research shows that many of these crimes occur in public places close to alcohol outlets (Day et al., 2012; Grubesic & Pridemore, 2011; Nelson et al., 2001; Richardson & Budd, 2003), and in routeways used by patrons to access transport or residential areas (Bromley & Nelson, 2002). People’s activities in places have a key role in providing opportunities for crime.

Crime and the availability and use of alcohol and drugs

Among theories that use the factor of opportunity, the routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) has also been widely used to examine alcohol-related violence. This theory asserts that crime is the result of the convergence of a motivated aggressor, an attractive target, and the absence of a capable guardian (which includes security staff and devices, but also informal surveillance). It also claims that some lifestyle factors increase the risk of victimization because they expose people to motivated offenders, increase their attractiveness as victims, and lower the presence of guardianship (Forsyth & Copes, 2010).

Among lifestyle factors that increase the risk of victimization, the most frequently examined has been the use of alcohol and drugs. In this model, alcohol and drugs act as crime facilitators, because they disinhibit offenders and increase victims’ attractiveness (Clarke, 1997). As data on levels of consumption are difficult to obtain, studies rely on measures of alcohol availability, commonly calculated through the number of alcohol outlets per capita or per area (Pridemore & Grubesic, 2012). Numerous studies have shown that a higher density of alcohol outlets is related to a higher likelihood of simple and aggravated assaults (Bromley & Nelson, 2002; Lipton & Gruenewald, 2002). More recently, Pridemore and Grubesic (2012) found a direct effect of total and off-premise outlet density on simple and aggravated assaults, and a positive association between bar density and simple assault. However, in their study, the association between alcohol outlet density and violence was moderated by land use, in that aggravated assault was higher in abandoned areas, whereas simple assault was more frequently related to commercial areas.

In addition, studies have shown that higher reported rates of violence are associated with licensed premises’ business hours (Chikritzhs & Stockwell, 2002; Rossow & Norstrom, 2012; Stockwell & Chikritzhs, 2009) and alcohol prices (Hughes et al., 2011). Increased business hours and cheap alcohol are associated with higher levels of drunkenness that result in more impulsive offenders and more vulnerable victims. In Schofield and Denson’s (2013) study, results showed that an increase in weekly outlet business hours was associated with higher reports of violent crime. The authors also found that these effects were present despite controlling for the density of alcohol outlets. Other studies have shown dramatic reductions of violence inside licensed premises and nearby areas following restricted closing times (Kypri, Jones, McElduff, & Barker, 2011; Mazerolle, White, Ransley, & Ferguson, 2012).

The environment of alcohol establishments

Research has shown that some environmental factors of drinking establishments are also related to alcohol-related violence. An important concept here is that of “risky facilities,” which refers to places where crime concentrates within a larger group of places of the same type (Eck, Clarke, & Guerette, 2007). Research shows that violence concentrates in a few alcohol establishments (Eck et al., 2009) and that these premises share some physical characteristics, including high noise levels, poor ventilation, inadequate seating, and overcrowding (Franquez, Hagala, Lim, & Bichler, 2013; Graham et al., 2006; Hughes et al., 2011). The capacity of premises has also been shown to contribute to alcohol-related harm within and outside risky facilities (Warburton & Sheperd, 2006).

The behavior of patrons and staff in licensed premises

The role of patrons and staff’s behavior in understanding opportunities for crime has been receiving increasing attention in the literature. In an early study examining patrons’ behaviors in bars and clubs, Homel, Tomsen, and Thommeny (1992) observed that people who experience high levels of discomfort and boredom drink faster and react more aggressively to situational factors such as overcrowding and poor-quality music. More recently, incidents of aggression in barroom contexts have been associated with male concerns regarding masculinity and social honor (Miller et al., 2014). Some experiences of physical and sexual aggression have been explained by social drinking group characteristics, such as the group’s drinking behaviors and prior experiences of victimization, above the effects of individual characteristics (Miller, Bourdeau, Johnson, & Voas, 2015).

The role of guardians seems to be key in promoting or preventing and managing alcohol-related violence in nighttime leisure environments. Studies have found that aggressive and poorly trained security staff, on the one hand, exerts lax surveillance that facilitates violence among patrons, and, on the other hand, gets involved in incidents of violence (Graham, Bernards, Osgood, Homel, & Purcell, 2005; Graham et al., 2014; Homel, Tomsen, & Thommeny, 1992). In Graham, Bernards, Osgood, Homel, and Purcell’s (2005) study, findings showed that staff often responded aggressively to incidents, even when patrons were nonaggressive. In contrast, the study of Graham et al. (2014) showed that staff does not intervene in most incidents of aggression related to sexual overtures and advances of males toward females, and the involvement of friends sometimes encouraged the initiator.

Empirical support has been found for many of the propositions made by opportunity theory, which have been the basis of studies that have identified criminality patterns, particularly the relationship between police-recorded data on crime and neighborhood or city characteristics (Pridemore & Grubesic, 2012; Roman, Reid, Bhati, & Tereshchenko, 2008). These theories are also the foundation of current crime prevention models, such as situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1997). In these theories, place plays a central role to understand patterns of crime and develop crime prevention strategies (Eck & Weisburd, 1995), but few studies target this level of analysis (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2010). In studies that consider people’s behaviors in micro places, observations are frequently carried out in licensed premises, such as bars and nightclubs (Chikritzhs & Stockwell, 2002; Franquez et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2005, 2014; Homel et al., 1992). People’s behaviors and interactions in the streets around alcohol establishments have been given little attention, except to record the number of assaults that take place there.

A recent development in theories that consider the factor of opportunity is presented in the work of Wikström (2006) and his situational action theory. This theory integrates individual and environmental factors to explain criminal behavior, understood as a breach of a moral rule. This theory maintains, and has empirically proven, that crime is the result of two main factors: first, people’s individual propensity to commit a crime (Wikström & Svensson, 2010; Wikström & Treiber, 2007); and second, their exposure to criminogenic settings, which provide a set of moral rules that apply in particular contexts. Evidence has shown that people’s exposure to criminogenic settings will influence their involvement in crime only when they have a high individual crime propensity in the first place (Wikström, Ceccato, Hardie, & Treiber, 2010).

We argue that the understanding of opportunities for crime in nighttime leisure zones requires a closer look at dynamics in micro places, defined as comprising not only licensed premises but also the streets in which they cluster. It requires the examination of both single variables and interactions of different aspects coinciding in these environments such as physical features of space distribution and facilities, the heterogeneity of actors interacting in these settings, their movements and activities, and their patterns of alcohol use. This information could further our knowledge of the ways in which physical and social risk factors interact to facilitate crime and can also be essential for designing crime prevention interventions.

The Study Area

In this study, we focused on the specific opportunities for crime in two sites within a popular nighttime leisure zone in Bogota, Colombia (estimated population 7.6 million people, Administrative Department of National Statistics, 2013). Bogota is host to high levels of violence, with rates of 17.7 homicides, 167.3 assaults with injury, and 370 incidents of theft per 100,000 inhabitants (National Police, 2015a). As in other cities, alcohol is involved in many of these crimes and situations of conflict. In 2011, almost 30% of victims of homicide in Bogota had used alcohol (Office of the Mayor in Bogota, 2013). The study was conducted in Chapinero, which is a large administrative unit of Bogota. This area is one of the most highly affected by crime in the city, with rates of assault with injury of 143.6 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants (Office of the Mayor in Bogota, 2010) varying greatly across space.

Bogota has at least 20 nighttime leisure zones, with high concentrations of clubs, bars, and other entertainment venues, such as casinos. According to local authorities, many of these zones constitute crime hot spots (Surveillance and Security Fund, 2011). The study area is known as the Zona Rosa and is made up of six adjacent south-to-north streets and five adjacent east-to-west streets, with numerous restaurants, European-style pubs, small shops, alcohol outlets, casinos, clubs, malls, retail shops, and cafes. It has been estimated that it hosts up to 20,000–30,000 people from Friday to Saturday. Police reported that in 2014, there were 2 homicides, 12 incidents of assault, and 124 cases of theft in these eight blocks (National Police, 2015b).

The study sites were chosen within an area of high alcohol outlet density and concentrated crime, but with low levels of personal injury and homicide, as reported by the police. This was important for researchers’ safety given that, in other areas of the city, bystanders are more likely to be caught up in and hurt during street fights. We chose to examine two contiguous streets as a way to explore whether there were any differences within an area locally defined as a hot spot, and the factors that might explain those differences.

Figure 1 shows the study area and the two chosen sites, each including both sides of the street where premises cluster and the street itself. The surrounding areas include a park, where drugs are sold, shops, parking lots, and casinos. There are also residential and office buildings, and a private hospital.

Figure 1.

Studied zone and streets.

Data and Method

We developed a qualitative multiple case study as described by Stake (2006). Examining the characteristics and dynamics of specific crime settings is more successfully achieved through qualitative research because this methodology is particularly useful in understanding the processes by which certain events take place (Maxwell, 2009). We used ethnographic methods of extensive participant observation and informal exchanges with people involved in the setting. Ethnographic methods are usually used to further our understanding of culture, to interpret people’s practices in a specific context (Griffin & Bengry-Howel, 2008), and reveal the tacit rules and routines of a community (Whitehead, 2005). We maintain that, in the context of nighttime leisure activities, ethnographic methods are helpful in gaining insights that would be difficult to obtain by other means. Ethnographic studies of drinking in public places have previously been used to identify situational factors and practices that increase the risk of physical violence (Homel et al., 1992).

Prior to fieldwork, we constructed an observation guideline drawing from opportunity theories and the research literature on alcohol-related crime. The guideline contained the following aspects: (1) environmental factors of the street and premises (e.g., noise, lighting), (2) people’s characteristics in and out of premises (patrons, staff, and others), (3) people’s interactions and movements in and out of establishments, (4) alcohol consumption routines (e.g., who, what, when, where), (5) incidents of aggression (harassment, physical aggression), (6) management practices, (7) guardianship, and (8) traffic. Observers (4 psychologists, 3 social workers, and 2 students; 3 males and 6 females) received three 2-hr training sessions previous to data collection in which we reviewed opportunity theories and the use of qualitative methods, based on the works of Atkinson and Hammersley (1994) and DeWalt and DeWalt (2002).

Data Collection

At the start of data collection, we conducted a 2-hr daytime observation in order to analyze factors related to the physical environment; and, in a 2-hr nighttime observation, we confirmed that the alcohol outlets were in fact open. We calculated alcohol density as the number of alcohol outlets in each micro place (in this case 200 m), as recommended by Pridemore and Grubesic (2012), and included establishments that serve alcohol for on-site consumption, such as bars, clubs, and casinos, but also retail establishments that sell alcohol for off-site consumption, such as liquor stores. We focused on the social dynamics among customers, staff members, and other actors in these settings to identify their characteristics and activities, their use of public space (both inside the premises and on the street), their movement and alcohol consumption routines, and their interactions. Finally, we recorded all incidents of alcohol-related violence. As in the study by Warburton and Sheperd (2006), we defined alcohol-related violence as any incident of disorder or assault (harassment, physical aggression, and verbal abuse) that occurred inside alcohol-licensed premises or in the street where these premises cluster. Physical aggression was later categorized as minor (pushing and shoving), moderate (grabbing forcefully and slapping), or severe (kicking and punching).

The team spent over 150 hr of participant observation in each site during nighttime activity on weekends (Fridays and Saturdays) from 9.30 p.m. to 3.30 a.m. Data collection was conducted throughout the months of November 2014 and February to April 2015. We decided not to conduct observations during the months of December and January because the holidays and celebrations could affect the area dynamics. Observations started by standing in the streets. One small group would enter licensed premises and the other would remain in the street, and they would exchange roles during the night. Each small group of observers had to visit a minimum of two establishments, so that at least four alcohol outlets were visited per night. However, decisions were also made based on the particular dynamics of the evening. We also implemented a rotation system, whereby researchers were assigned to either Friday or Saturday, but not both, to avoid exhaustion, and, on different days, they were assigned to different sites in order to maintain their attentiveness to detail. All observers took field notes during and after observations with mobile phones or small audio recording devices. All entries had to record the time at which they were made. Researchers had two 10-min breaks during which they could leave the street under study either to record their field notes or simply to relax. However, notes were entered at any time on mobile phones. Observers had to collect evidence and individually report their results in writing for each of the aspects on the day following their observations. We undertook all participant observations in public places, whether in the streets or in establishments selling alcohol.

Data Analysis

Researchers transcribed all field notes and created maps to understand patterns of movement and behavior in each site. Based on the eight broad categories used to record information during observations, researchers began to code transcripts into these categories. The first six reports were reviewed by two researchers, who independently assigned codes to sections of the transcripts. We generated further codes within categories using a theoretical thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Researchers met biweekly to compare emergent codes across accounts, assigning codes to observations, and discussing emerging patterns of routine activities for each site. We developed a final coding scheme, which was then applied to all transcripts. Qualitative researchers emphasize the importance of researchers recognizing their values, expectations, and impact on the situations they are studying. We explored values, experiences, and judgments regarding alcohol use and its relationship with aggression during training sessions. Concerns about safety and previous experiences in these scenarios related to enjoyment or risky behavior were also discussed. In order to verify the accuracy of the data and increase observers’ awareness of their “baggage,” the team met every 2 weeks to present their field notes, discuss their findings, and describe their experiences and impressions of the field. We discussed ethical concerns several times during the development of the project. A written protocol of security measures for all researchers to follow was established. This project received Institutional Review Board approval.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the observations performed in the two sites. Table 1 shows examples of the physical environments, the heterogeneity of actors in these sites, incidents of alcohol-related violence, people’s behavior, activities including drinking, and the intervention of different types of guardianship.

Table 1.

Summary of the Field Inspection and Observations.

Incidents of violence and situational factors.	Site 1	Site 2
Incidents of alcohol-related violence	58	19
Location of most incidents	Middle of the street	Bars and routeways
Peak hours for aggression	12 a.m. to 1 a.m. 2.30 a.m. to 3.30 a.m.	12 a.m. to 1 a.m. 2.30 a.m. to 3.30 a.m.
Physical/environmental factors of the settings
Land use	Mostly commercial
Alcohol outlet density	High
State of dilapidation	Irregular
Visibility	Medium
Business hours	Until 3 a.m.
Capacity of premises	Small (between 101 and 300 people) or very small (less than 100 people)
People’s behavior, activities, and routines related to movements and drinking patterns
Use of the space	Street is used as an alternative bar, alcohol bought in the street	People stay longer in bars or clubs and leave the street
Inside establishments	Crowded Alcohol prices are low	Crowded Alcohol is more expensive
Interactions in the street	Street crowded after midnight Many drunk people loiter Physical contact among patrons common Patrons mock each other and are aggressive toward police	Street half empty—transit Drunk people leave the street Physical contact among patrons occasional
Access to public transport	From 2.30 a.m., in the same street	From 2.30 a.m., people move to main avenues
Guardianship
Police presence and intervention	From 11.30 p.m. Checks inside establishments Intervene only when there are physical fights Do not check street vendors	From midnight Do not enter establishments Do not intervene in fights Ask street vendors to move away
Security staff	Difficult to identify Inadequate ID check at door Do not intervene unless damage to property	Staff in uniform and coordinated ID check at door Use of force inside establishments

Physical and Environmental Factors

Site 1 is easily accessible by foot, public or private transport. The sidewalks are wide even if irregular, while the street itself is narrow and heavy with traffic. The site is mostly commercial, with 19 alcohol outlets (pubs, clubs, and bars) per 200 m, three fast-food stores, and one closed down sex shop. The premises are small (between 101 and 300 people) or very small (less than 100 people), and 2 out the 19 premises offer a food service. Building facades are irregular, some in good state, others showing signs of deterioration. There are many visible heavy cables between six street light poles, one of which did not work throughout the 4 months of data collection, and the amount of garbage increases rapidly throughout the night. At night, the atmosphere in this site is vibrant, although the surrounding streets are deserted and dark. Team members described it as “an island.” There is loud music coming from the different establishments, and “raggaeton,” a type of dance music popular in Latin America, can frequently be heard from the street.

Site 2 is slightly more stylish than Site 1. Most of the buildings here are used for commercial purposes and most—but not all—of the fronts are nice, and there are few unoccupied houses in between the pubs, clubs, and restaurants. This street has eight street poles and visibility is poor to medium. Many establishments take the garbage out between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. and leave it next to street light poles. However, the site is perceived as safer than the surrounding streets. There were 17 alcohol outlets per 200 m. Compared to Site 1, many establishments do not have dance floors but are solely for drinking alcohol while listening to music. The capacity of all the premises is also small (between 101 and 300 people) or very small (less than 100 people), but half the premises offer food services (8 out of 17). Although alcohol outlets operate until 3 a.m., observers perceived the street in Site 2 as less noisy than the one in Site 1.

Actor Heterogeneity

The number of people present in the establishments and public spaces of both sites is high and heterogeneous. Patrons of both streets are young men and women between the ages of 18 and 35, occasionally older. Most patrons move in groups of four or more, and only a small proportion of people come in couples. In both streets, there were 3 males for every female. Police and security staff are always present. Police officers are seen going up and down the street on foot and motorcycle, especially after midnight. They also park their cars or trucks at intersections. Security staff is generally located inside the licensed premises. Pushers for sex workers and adult shows walk up and down the street. In each site, four homeless people walk the street looking into trashcans, sometimes approaching patrons and drinking from alcohol bottles left on the sidewalks. Street vendors sell hot dogs, candy and flowers, as well as illegal alcohol and drugs. Street vendors are present throughout the night, but they remain stationary, except at closing time, when they approach patrons offering alcohol.

Incidents of Alcohol-Related Violence

We observed 58 incidents in Site 1 (Table 2). More than half were incidents of harassment and/or verbal abuse, and most occurred on the street. Incidents of physical aggression involved shoving and pushing, grabbing the other forcefully, slapping, and sometimes punching and kicking, but no weapons. They very frequently involved males against males. Incidents occurred between friends (within groups that came together), among strangers (for personal space or rivalry), among patrons and taxi drivers, and between couples. Peak hours for fights were from 12 a.m. to 1 a.m. and from 2.30 a.m. to 3.30 a.m., both consistent with times at which many people leave alcohol establishments and stay in the street. At both times, the street itself is crowded, and moving through involves physical contact, either to make way or avoid being pushed by others. One observer indicated,

There are so many people everywhere that it’s difficult to calculate how many. Cars are a danger too. I was walking on the sidewalk, a drunken guy pushed me into the street and a car had to stop abruptly.

Table 2.

Alcohol-Related Violence Per Site.

Type of Violence	Site 1		Site 2
Type of Violence	Premises	Street	Premises	Street
Verbal	15	23	9	6
Physical	5	15	4	0
Low(pushing and shoving)	2	4	2	0
Moderate (grabbing forcefully, and slapping)	1	4	1	0
Severe (kicking and punching)	2	7	1	0
Total	20	38	13	6

In Site 2, most fights occurred in bars and routeways after midnight. We observed 19 incidents. When fights occurred within establishments, security staff swiftly forced the parties out of the premises. Aggressive interactions occurred between strangers (male–male and male–female) regarding stolen property and between friends of the same group. Aggressive interactions also occurred between patrons and police officers or security staff. We witnessed security staff push patrons onto the street, and use force to restrain drunken patrons, sometimes dragging bystanders into the struggle. However, once the people involved in a fight were out of the streets, there was no intervention from security staff, bystanders, or police. Here, some fights continued but most were quickly dissolved.

People’s Behavior and Drinking Patterns

In Site 1, patrons arrive in the street at around 9.30 p.m. They usually stay in groups and some go into the premises before 10 p.m., because restrictions are fewer. At this time, staff may or may not ask for identification, and there is no entrance fee. Staff from different establishments invites patrons to come inside, offering alcohol at low prices. By 10.30 p.m., there are many people in the street, drinking alcohol while they wait for their friends or simply because alcohol is cheaper when bought outside the premises, especially when bought illegally from street vendors. At 11.30 p.m., people move in and out of establishments but many stay in the street. In the space of 200 m, we counted between 200 and 1,000 people during the night. On average, however, there were around 300 people standing in the street. By midnight, some people are very drunk. Throughout the night, staff encourages patrons to drink alcohol and, based on researchers’ own experience, people not drinking alcohol are asked to leave the tables and moved to the sides of the premises. Consistently across alcohol outlets, staff continues to sell alcohol to people who are already very intoxicated. Premises start closing at 2.30 a.m. and, with the exception of one establishment, everybody is out by 3 a.m. At this time, there is a general feeling of chaos: Many people are drunk, cannot walk properly, throw up in the street, sit or sleep on the sidewalks, argue or fight, and try to take a taxi on the same street. Taking public transport is a slow endeavor. There is so much movement that it is difficult to understand what is going on. One observer stated,

the most critical moment for us was taking transportation at 3 a.m.; we felt uncomfortable and at risk, and we kept thinking “how are we going to go back home?”

In Site 2, people arrive around 11 p.m. Bars and clubs are usually empty between 9.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. People come in couples but also in groups of four or more. However, this is a zone of transit, where there are many patrons in the street but they do not loiter. They stay in chosen bars and clubs, and when they leave an establishment, they enter another one or leave the street. A few people buy illegal alcohol from street vendors but drink it in the park. Bars are nice and clean, and prices for alcohol are higher than in Site 1. These establishments are also overcrowded as the night progresses. By 11.30 p.m., there are no tables available, no space at the bar, and no space to access the restrooms. People who order large amounts of alcohol are moved to a VIP area of the bar. After midnight, many people in bars display the classic signs of intoxication: loss of coordination and equilibrium, vomiting, sleeping on the tables, and displays of emotional behavior. Regardless, the staff continues to serve alcohol to highly inebriated patrons. There were only a few isolated cases of drunken people loitering in the street.

Guardianship

Guardianship in Site 1 is poor, with only one visible camera next to a street light pole. Police presence starts at 11.30 p.m., at which time officers stay mainly in the streets and occasionally enter bars to identify minors. Most establishments in Site 1 have security staff located both inside and outside the establishment, as well as surveillance cameras. In the others establishments, security staff members are more difficult to identify and access is easier: Nobody was denied access during observations. At around 2 a.m., police presence increases. There are two police cars, one on every corner, but police officers do not intervene in disruptive behavior unless there is a physical fight between men. Police do not intervene in other problematic and disorderly behavior, such as traffic, illegal sales of alcohol and drugs in the streets, or drinking alcohol in public places. Similarly, security staff does not intervene in aggressive interactions among people in the street even if they are occurring in front of their premises. Security staff does not appear to care about what happens in the street. When an incident occurs, they turn away and go inside, or watch and do not do anything. However, we witnessed patrons being aggressive toward police. Most drunk patrons approached by police did not go to the station quietly. One observer noted,

all the people that the police approached were drunk, they provoked police with insults, pushing them, resisting arrest, throwing themselves on the floor, and trying to punch anyone within their reach.

There are low levels of informal social control too. In Site 2, all establishments have security staff, tall men, and women in their 30s, wearing uniforms, and using communication devices (headsets and microphones). Security staff is organized and have different functions. Some check people’s bags and identification cards, others take the entrance fee, others put identifiers on people’s wrists (wristbands). People are routinely searched, and some are refused entry. In these establishments, the security staff tends to be quick to take control of physically aggressive situations: They break up fights, and they forcefully push patrons out, leaving them in the street. Police officers are also present in this street at around midnight, but their intervention is different from the one observed in Site 1. Police are constantly checking on street vendors and asking them to move out. However, they do not enter bars or clubs and do not control private cars parked in prohibited zones before 2.30 a.m., when police control increases.

Discussion of the Results

Understanding where crime occurs is essential to adequately responding to crime. In the field of alcohol-related violence, research has focused on the distribution of crime in and around alcohol outlets over large or medium areas (Nelson et al., 2001; Pridemore & Grubesic, 2012) and has explained differences in violence as related to the physical characteristics of alcohol establishments (Franquez et al., 2013; Hughes et al., 2011; Warburton & Sheperd, 2006) and guardianship (Graham et al., 2005, 2014). The results of this exploratory study suggest that understanding people’s behavior and interactions in the streets where alcohol outlets cluster can also help explain differences in violence between contiguous places, even when these are similar in terms of alcohol availability, physical characteristics, and alcohol availability factors.

As in previous research (Chikritzhs & Stockwell, 2002; Pridemore & Grubesic, 2012; Rossow & Norström, 2012; Stockwell & Chikritzhs, 2009), both sites presented key risk factors associated with alcohol-related violence. Both sites were used for commercial purposes, had a moderate state of dilapidation, a high alcohol outlet density, and operated until 3 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Consistent with the literature examining the location of alcohol-related fights (Graham et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2001), most aggressive incidents and fights occurred in the street, followed by bars and routeways. Similar to the findings of other studies (Bromley & Nelson, 2002), in both observed sites, violence took place around and after midnight. Finally, semiprivate premises in both sites presented similar environmental characteristics, such as loud music and crowding, that have been associated with alcohol-related violence (Hughes et al., 2011).

The study presents a contribution in that it shows that, despite these similarities, people’s behaviors and routines were different in contiguous streets, fostering different concentrations of disorder and three times as many incidents of aggression in Site 1 than Site 2. Alcohol-related violence occurred in premises, streets, and routeways but the location of the incidents was different for each site. Most incidents of aggression occurred in the street of Site 1, whereas in Site 2, they occurred inside licensed premises and routeways. Compared to Site 2, people in Site 1 used public spaces as an extension of alcohol outlets; the enactment of rules was irregular; drunk and disorderly behavior was accepted; patrons normalized uncaring, disrespectful behavior toward others, and committed other “small” infractions on the side, such as buying illegal alcohol. Exploring these patterns of behaviors is important for the development of opportunity theories because they reveal social factors that increase the risk of patrons being involved in fights, as well as factors that can lead potential aggressors to believe that the cost of provoking violent interactions in this setting is low. Aspects related to the social atmosphere and people’s behavior and interactions have been previously examined in alcohol establishments (Homel et al., 1992; Miller et al., 2014, 2015), but few studies have explored people’s social behavior in the streets close to them.

Brantingham and Brantingham (1998) claimed that nighttime leisure zones with high alcohol outlet densities can act as crime attractors. The Zona Rosa clearly acts as one because it is widely known as an area with high levels of crime. Offenders travel to this area at night to commit crimes involving drug dealing, theft, and burglary. However, we do not think that this zone is a crime attractor for violent crime. Rather, the concentration of people and the level of disorder will make crime generators for alcohol-related violence of these two sites, especially Site 1. As suggested by situational action theory (Wikström, 2006), people may perceive that different moral rules apply to different settings. Our study suggests that in the street in Site 1, people behave in a more disorderly and aggressive manner than in the street of Site 2 because they perceive the setting as more permissible. It may be possible that people in this area will behave aggressively stimulated by the street’s level of noise, the forced physical contact among strangers, and observation of the disorderly behavior of others. It is also possible that people looking for trouble will choose to party in the most vibrant and chaotic atmosphere in the first place.

The question that remains, however, is why are there so many differences in terms of social disorder and facilitators in two contiguous streets? We offer two suggestions: First, as Wilson and Kelling (1982) have indicated, normalizing disorderly behavior may lead to the breakdown of community controls and foster serious deviant behavior. According to these authors, one piece of damaged or abandoned property can easily deteriorate into a setting vulnerable to crime because the people of the area will progressively exert less informal control over people with deviant behaviors. However, a higher level of aggressive incidents is not only triggered by a dilapidated environment, otherwise it would start earlier at night and be very similar in both streets. Rather, it is related to people’s use of the physical space and their interactions in these spaces. The street in Site 1 was progressively occupied by people drinking alcohol, from 9.30 p.m. onward with a turning point at midnight, when the street is under the control of drunk patrons standing very close to each other so that leaving the area is difficult without physical contact, which can easily become hostile. At this point, the concentration of drunken people and the chaotic environment may motivate people to engage in violence.

A second possibility concerns the relative absence of guardianship. Adequate guardianship is an essential aspect of the routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) and opportunity theories in general. In both of the studied micro places, informal surveillance was minimal, and security staff and police intervention were limited and selective, contradicting the theoretical idea of a capable guardian. Consistently with the findings of Graham et al. (2005, 2014), we found that staff did not intervene in most disorderly behaviors within establishments, but became aggressive toward patrons and involved innocent bystanders in the struggle when managing an incident. Similarly, police allowed many more expressions of disorderly behavior in public spaces in Site 1 than in Site 2. Police are efficient in breaking apart males involved in physical confrontation, but have very poor relationships with patrons, a situation that results in more incidents of violence when police proceed to arrest. Although police presence increased at those times, we identified several instances of aggressive interactions where police were not present or did not intervene. Our observations could not be sufficient to give an accurate picture of all the times and places where alcohol-related aggression occurred. However, consistent with previous studies (Nelson et al., 2001), the study suggests that assault in these micro spaces is underreported in police records. There is a need to develop methodologies that improve our current knowledge of the circumstances and frequency of crime in micro spaces within areas of concentrated crime.

Conclusions

This study supports a growing body of research that suggests that examining people’s routines and behaviors can be useful in identifying the ways in which physical and social aspects interact to increase opportunities for crime. In our study, understanding people’s use of public spaces around alcohol establishments helped us understand the occurrence of assault in two sites within an area of concentrated crime. Future research should continue to explore the interactions between environmental factors and the ways in which people use public spaces in settings with high alcohol availability. Examining local dynamics related to people’s interactions with each other and their routines can provide answers as to differences in crime within areas of concentrated crime and offer suggestions as to protective factors that may be promoted. In addition, it may be useful to understand the challenges and obstacles that such prevention strategies will come up against in these areas, especially when they concern organizations, institutions, establishments, and community members working together to improve the safety of public places. Using qualitative methods to study nighttime leisure zones can be helpful in this endeavor, as it enables us to consider the complex interactions of physical, behavioral, and social aspects of these settings in creating opportunities for crime.

Limitations

This study shares a number of limitations with studies of this type. First, it examined some aspects of opportunity theories, but did not consider aspects of the theory related to offenders’ individual characteristics that could help explain the differences in alcohol-related violence between the study sites. According to recent theories, such as Situational Action, differences in levels of violence are explained by the interaction between individuals’ propensity for crime and criminogenic settings (Wikström et al., 2010). Second, the study focused on verbal abuse, harassment, and physical aggression, but did not look at other crimes, such as property crimes, vandalism, or drug dealing. Third, the study supported previous research suggesting that, just like crime, disorder also concentrates in certain places (Yang, 2010). However, although we found numerous behaviors that indicated disorder, the study did not conceive a typology that could have been useful to later identify different levels of disorder. Fourth, although ethnographic methods of extensive participant observation and informal exchanges with people allowed us to understand people’s activities and patterns of movement and alcohol consumption, we agree with Clarke (1997) that the best methodology to examine the crime problems is an action research model that involves both researchers and the community. Our experience in this study was that establishing an alliance between researchers, the community, and licensed premises owners in these commercial micro spaces tends to be challenging and often not possible. Finally, our study examined only two streets in one large area of concentrated crime in Bogota, and, as such, the generalizability to other streets, areas, or cities is not obvious. That being said, Bogota shares many social and cultural characteristics with other cities in Central and South America, including the absence of policies to control alcohol availability (Monteiro, 2007), limited prevention efforts that involve the community (Perez, Mejía, & Becoña, 2015), and the vital role of public places in the nighttime social life. The dynamics witnessed in these sites can be present in similar contexts.

Policy Implications

Previous literature has suggested that a public health approach is required to address drunkenness in public places (Bellis & Hughes, 2011), whereby a systematic approach is used to evaluate the magnitude of the problem, establish why violence occurs, and implement interventions that benefit a large number of people. We agree with this approach in that it is essential that some measures be widely implemented to limit the levels of intoxication reached by customers. However, we suggest that intervention measures should consider the local dynamics of microenvironments before implementation. This is because generalized interventions fail to identify the contexts’ priorities and particular interactions between risk factors. Moreover, local dynamics should be considered because communities can present specific barriers that affect program fidelity and the long-term implementation of a program.

We suggest that an examination of the micro places may give us relevant information about the opportunities and challenges of implementing interventions. This information relates to the specific dynamics of these streets that—as in Cornish and Clarke’s (2003) typology—increase the efforts and risks, reduce rewards and provocations, and remove excuses. Although many of these techniques are applicable to any at-risk environment, the study of small areas allows us to prioritize these measures. Most importantly, knowledge of specific micro areas can also help us foresee some of the challenges of implementing these measures. Loitering in the street, for example, is part of the particular “street culture.” Although prohibiting alcohol consumption in the street might reduce the rewards of loitering, the high numbers of people involved in this activity will make it very difficult to control.

We suggest that reducing crime opportunities related to people’s behaviors requires not only the posting and enforcement of rules, but investment in improving people’s acceptance of such rules, and changing people’s expectations of each other’s behavior in such settings. We draw upon situational action theory (Wikström, 2006) and environmental design (Crowe & Zham, 1994) to suggest that changing the physical aspects of the context might result in changing people’s perception of aggression as a viable choice in such settings. Clearly, this approach would also require simultaneous efforts that promote moderate alcohol consumption and civil behavior, and support the role of police officers as the legitimate guardians of the space. The option of changing the physical environment to control people’s use of public spaces is likely to both be supported by the businesses in the street and to decrease the opportunities for crime currently created by the interaction of high levels of intoxication, chaos, and open opposition to police intervention. Just as importantly, it would actually lead to improving people’s experiences of enjoyment of nighttime leisure zones, thus improving the odds of maintaining those changes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors acknowledge the financial support of Bavaria for the development of this project.

References

Administrative Department of National Statistics. (2013). Proyecciones de población, 2005-2020. Retrieved from www.dane.gov.co

Atkinson

Hammersley

(1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In Denzin

Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bellis

M. A.

Hughes

(2011). Getting drunk safely? Nightlife policy in the UK and its public health consequences. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 536–545.

Braga

A. A.

Weisburd

(2010). Editor’s introduction: Empirical evidence of the relevance of place in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 1–6.

Brantingham

P. L.

Brantingham

P. J.

(1993). Environment, routine and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In Clarke

R. V.

Felson

(Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (pp. 259–294). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Brantingham

P. L.

Brantingham

P. J.

(1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 3, 1–26.

Brantingham

P. L.

Brantingham

P. J.

(1998). Mapping crime for analytic purposes: Location quotients, counts, and rates. In Weisburd

McEwen

(Eds.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 8, pp. 253–288). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Bromley

Nelson

(2002). Alcohol-related crime and disorder across Urban space and time: Evidence from a British city. Geoforum, 33, 239–254.

10.

Bureau of Crime Statistics. (2007). Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dcf.pdf

11.

Chikritzhs

Stockwell

(2002). The impact of later trading hours for Australian public houses (hotels) on levels of violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 591–599.

12.

Clarke

R. V.

(1997). Introduction. In Clarke

R. V.

(Ed.), Situational crime prevention successful case studies (pp. 1–43). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.

13.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–605.

14.

Cornish

D. B.

Clarke

R. V.

(2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions. Crime Prevention Studies. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

15.

Crowe

T. D.

Zahm

D. L.

(1994). Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Land Development, Fall, 22–27.

16.

Day

Breetzke

Kingham

Campbell

(2012). Close proximity to alcohol outlets is associated with increased serious violent crime in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36, 48–54.

17.

DeWalt

(2002). Doing participant observation: Becoming an observer. In Eck

J.E.

Weisburd

(Eds.), Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers (pp. 67–82). Oxford, England: Alta Mira Press.

18.

Eck

J. E.

Clarke

R. V.

Guerette

R. T.

(2007). Risky facilities: Crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. Crime Prevention Studies, 21, 225–264.

19.

Eck

J. E.

Madensen

Payne

Wilcox

Fischer

Scherer

(2009). Situational crime prevention at specific locations in community context: Place and neighborhood Effects. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/229364.pdf

20.

Eck

J. E.

Weisburd

(1995). Crime places in crime theory. In Crime prevention studies (Vol. 4, pp. 1–33). New York, NY: Criminal Justice Press and the Police Executive Research Forum.

21.

Felson

Clarke

R. V.

(1998). Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, London, England.

22.

Forsyth

C. J.

Copes

(2010). Encyclopedia of social deviance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Franquez

J. J.

Hagala

Lim

Bichler

(2013). “We be drinking”: A study of place management and premise notoriety among risky bars and nightclubs. Western Criminology Review, 14, 34–52.

24.

Graham

Bernards

Osgood

D. W

Abbey

Parks

Flynn

… Wells

(2014). “Blurred Lines?” Sexual aggression and barroom culture. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research Journal, 38, 1416–1424.

25.

Graham

Bernards

Osgood

W. D.

Homel

Purcell

(2005). Guardians and handlers: The role of bar staff in preventing and managing aggression. Addiction, 100, 755–766.

26.

Graham

Bernards

Osgood

W. D.

Wells

(2006). Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction, 101, 1569–1580.

27.

Griffin

Bengry-Howel

(2008). Ethnography. In Willig

Stainton-Rogers

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 15–31). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Grubesic

T. H.

Pridemore

W. A.

(2011). Alcohol outlets and clusters of violence. International Journal of Health Geographics, 10, 30. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-10-30

29.

Homel

Tomsen

Thommeny

(1992). Public drinking and violence: Not just and alcohol problem. The Journal of Drug Issues, 22, 679–697.

30.

Hughes

Quigg

Eckley

Bellis

Jones

Calafat

… van Hasselt

(2011). Environmental factors in drinking venues and alcohol-related harm: The evidence base for European intervention. Addiction, 106, 37–46.

31.

Kypri

Jones

McElduff

Barker

(2011). Effects of restricting pub closing times on nighttime assaults in an Australian city. Addiction, 106, 303–310.

32.

Lipton

Gruenewald

(2002). The spatial dynamics of violence and alcohol outlets. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 63, 187–195.

33.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2009). Designing a qualitative study. In Bickman

Rog

D. J.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Mazerolle

White

Ransley

Ferguson

(2012). Violence in and around entertainment districts: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of late-night lockout legislation. Law & Policy, 34, 55–79.

35.

Miller

B. A.

Bourdeau

Johnson

Voas

(2015). Experiencing aggression in clubs: Social groups and individual level predictors. Prevention Science, 16, 527–537.

36.

Miller

Wells

Hobbs

Zinkiewicz

Curtis

Graham

(2014). Alcohol, masculinity, honour and male barroom aggression in an Australian sample. Drug and Alcohol Review, 33, 136–143.

37.

Monteiro

M. G.

(2007). Alcohol y salud pública en las Americas, un caso para la acción. Washington, DC: Organización Mundial de la Salud.

38.

National Police. (2013). Comportamiento de la criminalidad en Colombia, 2012. Criminalidad, 55, 11–34.

39.

National Police. (2015a). Tablas estadísticas: delitos y contravenciones, 2014. Criminalidad, 57, 23–136.

40.

National Police. (2015b). Crime statistics, locality of Chapinero. National Defense Ministry. Bogota: Metropolitan Police.

41.

Nelson

Bromley

Thomas

(2001). Identifying micro-spatial and temporal patterns of violent crime and disorder in the British city center. Applied Geography, 21, 249–274.

42.

Office of the Mayor of Bogota. (2010). Bogotá: Ciudad de estadísticas. Bogotá, DC: Seguridad y Convivencia Ciudadana. Secretaría de Gobierno de Bogotá.

43.

Office of the Mayor of Bogota. (2013). Plan integral de convivencia y seguridad ciudadana. Bogota D.C., 2013–2023. Bogotá, DC: Author.

44.

Office for National Statistics. (2015). Violent crime and sexual offences- Alcohol-related violence. Recovered from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_394516.pdf

45.

Parker

Williams

McCaffree

Acensio

Browne

Strom

Barrick

(2011). Alcohol availability and youth homicide in the 91 largest US cities 1984-2006. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 505–514.

46.

Perez

Mejía

Becoña

(2015). De la prevención y otras historias. Bogotá: Corporación Nuevos Rumbos.

47.

Popovici

Homer

J. F.

Fang

French

M. T.

(2012). Alcohol use and crime: Findings from a longitudinal sample of U.S. adolescents and young adults. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research Journal, 36, 532–543.

48.

Pridemore

Grubesic

(2012). A spatial analysis of the moderating effects of land use on the association between alcohol outlet density and violence in urban areas. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31, 385–393.

49.

Richardson

Budd

(2003). Alcohol, crime and disorder: A study of young adults. London, England: Home Office.

50.

Roman

C. G.

Reid

S. E.

Bhati

A. S.

Tereshchenko

(2008). Alcohol outlets as attractors of violence and disorder. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411663

51.

Rossow

Norström

(2012). The impact of small changes in bar closing hours on violence: The Norwegian experience from 18 cities. Addiction, 107, 530–537.

52.

Schofield

Denson

(2013). Alcohol outlet business hours and violent crime in New York State. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 48, 363–369.

53.

Stake

R. E.

(2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

54.

Stockwell

Chikritzhs

(2009). Do relaxed business hours for bars and clubs mean more relaxed drinking quest? A review of international research on the impacts of changes to permitted hours of drinking. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 11, 153–170.

55.

Surveillance and Security Fund. (2011). Informe de gestión cualificada. Bogotá: Author.

56.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

(2010). Cohen, Lawrence, E., and Marcus K. Felson: Routine Activity Theory. In Cullen

Wilcox

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 187–193). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Trolldal

Haggård

Guldbrandsson

(2013). Factors associated with implementation of a multicomponent responsible beverage service program – results from two surveys in 290 Swedish municipalities. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy, 8, 1–10.

58.

Warburton

A. L.

Sheperd

J. P.

(2006). Tackling alcohol related violence in city centers: Effect of emergency medicine and police intervention. Emergency Medicine Journal, 23, 12–17.

59.

Watt

Purdie

D. M.

Roche

A. M.

McClure

(2006). Acute alcohol consumption and mechanism of injury. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 67, 14–21.

60.

Whitehead

T. L.

(2005). Basic classical ethnography research methods. Working Paper Series. Cultural Ecology of Health and Change. Maryland: University of Maryland. College Park.

61.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

(2006). Situational action theory. In Cullen

Wilcox

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 1000–1008). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

62.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

Ceccato

Hardie

Treiber

(2010). Activity fields and the dynamics of crime. Advancing knowledge about the role of the environment and crime causation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 55–87.

63.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

Treiber

(2007). The role of self-control in crime causation. Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 237–264.

64.

Wikström

P.-O. H.

Svensson

(2010). When does self-control matter? The interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 395–410.

65.

Wilson

J. Q.

Kelling

G. L.

(1982). Broken windows. The Atlantic. Recovered from http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198203/broken-windows

66.

World Health Organization. (2006). Interpersonal violence and Alcohol. Recovered from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/factsheets/pb_violencealcohol_es.pdf

67.

Yang

S. M.

(2010). Assessing the spatial-temporal relationship between disorder and violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 139–163.