Abstract
ABSTRACT Although there has recently been a considerable increase in research into lone actor terrorism, one of the main areas that remains understudied is that of target selection. The lack of empirically driven studies that can guide prevention measures is a notable oversight. This paper applies methods from environmental criminology to examine the residence-to-attack journeys of 122 lone terrorist acts in the U.S and Europe. The distance decay effect was evident, and significant differences were found between subgroups. Individuals were more likely to travel further if a) they were in the U.S, b) they had links to a wider network, c) they had a single-issue ideology, d) they attacked an iconic target, e) they attacked a symbolic building, or f) they used a bomb as their main weapon. A few case studies are discussed which highlight a need to conduct further research that considers the whole nodal network of an individual. The findings suggest that distance can be put forward as a constraining factor on lone actor target selection and provide support for the notion that the spatial decision making of terrorists is similar to traditional criminals.
Highlights
Environmental criminology is concerned with understanding the role of settings and geography more broadly in crime, as well as other related, proximal determinants of criminal activity with an emphasis on the role of person-situation interactions.[1]
Insights from environmental criminology are increasingly prevalent within the study of terrorist behaviour
Other studies have focused upon the geographic and situational determinants of terrorist risk in a given terrain[3], whether attacks increase due to symbolic dates or special events 4, the socio-spatial dependencies in terrorist networks[5] and the situational and individual predictors of target selection.[6]
Summary
Environmental criminology is concerned with understanding the role of settings and geography more broadly in crime, as well as other related, proximal determinants of criminal activity with an emphasis on the role of person-situation interactions.[1]. Some operate autonomously and independently of a group (in terms of training, preparation and target selection etc.) Within this group, some may have radicalized towards violence within a wider group, but left and engaged in illicit behaviours outside of a formal command and control structure. The rational choice perspective of crime is premised on the notion that offenders are rational and purposeful in their decision-making, calculating the costs and benefits of action alternatives before choosing to act or not.[13] this rationality is subject to limits and is guided by time, effort, experience and knowledge,[14] leading Cornish and Clarke to further posit that offenders (and people in general) are best understood as acting with limited rationality Simon refined this reflection and eventually introduce the concept of bounded rationality[15]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
