Suchergebnisse

Intro -- About This Book -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- About the Authors -- Chapter 1: Places and Crime -- Social Control Hidden in Plain Sight -- Place, Place Managers, and Place Management -- The Concentration of Crime at Places -- The Argument That Follows -- References -- Chapter 2: Why Some Places Are Bad -- Explanation 0: It's Random -- Explanation 1: Reporting Bias -- Explanation 2: Size Matters -- Explanation 3: Repeat Victimization -- Explanation 4: Hot Products -- Explanation 5: Offender Concentration -- Explanation 6: Repeat Offenders -- Explanation 7: Inadequate Guardianship -- Explanation 8: Poor Handling -- Explanation 9: Low Informal Social Control -- Explanation 10: Bad Physical Design -- Too Many Explanations -- Appendix: Three Explanations for Proximal Place Crime Concentration -- References -- Chapter 3: Place Management -- Place Managers -- The Four Functions of Place Management -- Organization of Space -- Regulation of Conduct -- Control of Access -- Acquisition of Resources -- Place Management as a Keystone Explanation -- Organization of Space -- Regulation of Conduct -- Control of Access -- Acquisition of Resources -- Crime Prevention Within Places -- Situational Crime Prevention -- Evidence Situational Prevention Works at Places -- Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 4: Sources of Powers -- Being Explicit About Sources of Control Powers -- Defining Forms of Control -- What Is Community Informal Social Control? -- X: Actors -- A: Actions -- T: Targets -- G: Goals -- P: Powers -- The Source of Power of Place Managers -- Property Rights -- Rights That May Be Included in a Bundle of Rights -- Authority, Power, and Social Control -- References -- Chapter 5: Place Manager Failures and Successes -- Why Some Fail But Most Do Not -- Controls on Place Managers -- Failures -- Conclusions -- References.

AbstractDespite decades of research into social disorganization theory, criminologists have made little progress developing community programs that reduce crime. The lack of progress is due in part to faulty assumptions in the theory: that neighborhoods are important; that residents are the primary source of control; and that informal social controls are emergent. In this paper we propose an alternative: the neighborhoods out of places explanation (NOPE). NOPE starts with property parcels (i.e., proprietary places), rather than neighborhoods. It focuses on the power and legal authority of people and institutions that own property, rather than on residents. It posits that control is intentional and goal driven, rather than emergent. We refer to those who own and control as creators. This small group of elites shape city areas and residents must adapt to the environments that suppress or facilitate crime. We discuss how shifting our focus to creators provides important new implications for theory, research, and policy in criminology.

Context
In Western Australia, baits containing 1080 poison are widely used to control the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) for fauna conservation. Despite long-term (15–17 years) baiting programs, bait uptake by target and non-target species is largely unknown, but affects baiting efficacy.

Aims
We examined bait uptake of 1080-poisoned fox baits laid according to current practice at seven riparian sites in the northern jarrah forest (of south-west Western Australia). There, intensive baiting regimes have been implemented for the protection of quokka (Setonix brachyurus) populations.

Methods
Over 9 months, 299 Probait® baits were monitored regularly to determine their persistence, and, at 142 of these, Reconyx HC500 remote cameras were used to identify the species taking baits. To compare bait uptake with species presence at these sites, we calculated an activity index for each species from the number of passes of animals in front of the cameras.

Key results
The species taking baits was identified for 100 of the baits monitored with cameras, and, because of multiple species taking baits, 130 bait take incidents were recorded in total. The fate of 40 of the baits was not discernible and two baits were not removed. In all, 99% of baits monitored by cameras were taken by non-target species and quokkas took 48% of them. The majority of baits (62% of the total 299 monitored) were taken before or on the first night of deployment, and 95% of baits had been taken within 7 days. With the exception of feral pigs, which took more baits than predicted from their activity index at these sites, baits were taken in proportion to the activity index of species. Foxes were present at four of the seven sites, but only one fox was observed taking a bait.

Conclusions
The high level of uptake of baits by non-target animals reflects their diversity and abundance at these sites, but also significantly reduces the availability of baits to control foxes.

Implications
Strategies to reduce non-target bait uptake and increase bait availability for foxes are required.

"Foreword" -- "Preface" -- "How We Came to Excavate Pech IV?" -- "Why Re-excavate Pech IV?" -- "A Preview of This Monograph" -- "Final Words" -- "References" -- "Contents" -- "Editors and Contributors" -- "1 Introduction" -- "The Pech de l'Azé Sites" -- "Bordes' Excavations at Pech IV" -- "The Pech IV Sequence Based on the 1970–1977 Excavations" -- "Overview of the New Pech IV Project" -- "Bordes' Collections" -- "The New Excavation" -- "Methods Used During the 2000–2003 Excavations" -- "Sample Collection" -- "Casts" -- "Photography" -- "Yearly Progress of the Excavations" -- "The Current Status of the Pech IV Collections and the Site" -- "References" -- "2 Stratigraphy, Deposits, and Site Formation" -- "Introduction" -- "Site Setting" -- "Stratigraphy" -- "Micromorphological Methods" -- "Results" -- "Layer 8 (≡Bordes' Levels YZ)" -- "Layer 7 (=The Uppermost Part of Bordes' Level X)" -- "Layer 6 (≡Bordes' Levels J3, J3a, J3b, and J3c)." -- "Layers 5A and 5B (Roughly ≡ Bordes' Levels J1, J2, and J3)" -- "Layers 4A, 4B, and 4C (≡Bordes' Levels G, H1, H2, I1, and I2)" -- "Layers 3A and 3B (≡Bordes' Levels F1 to F4)" -- "Layer 2 (Possibly Bordes' Level D?)" -- "Layers 1A, 1B, 1C, (Possibly Bordes' Levels A1-D)" -- "Specific Micromorphological Aspects of the Deposits" -- "Artifact Orientations" -- "Methods" -- "Results" -- "Edge Damage" -- "Methods" -- "Results" -- "Breakage and Heated Flints" -- "Methods" -- "Results" -- "Small Finds" -- "Methods" -- "Results" -- "Discussion" -- "Trampling" -- "Depositional Processes" -- "Sequence of Formation" -- "Integrity of the Archaeological Record" -- "Concluding Comments" -- "References" -- "3 An Absolute Chronological Framework for Pech IV" -- "Introduction" -- "Setting the Clock Ticking: An Overview of the Absolute Dating Methods Used at Pech IV

Context
Camera trapping is a widely used monitoring tool for a broad range of species across most habitat types. Camera trapping has some major advantages over other trapping methods, such as pitfall traps, because cameras can be left in the field for extended periods of time. However, there is still a need to compare traditional trapping methods with newer techniques.

Aims
To compare trap rates, species richness and community composition of small mammals and reptiles by using passive, unbaited camera traps and pitfall traps.

Methods
We directly compared pitfall trapping (20-L buried buckets) with downward-facing infrared-camera traps (Reconyx) to survey small reptiles and mammals at 16 sites within a forested habitat in south-western Australia. We compared species captured using each method, as well as the costs associated with each.

Key results
Overall, we recorded 228 reptiles, 16 mammals and 1 frog across 640 pitfall trap-nights (38.3 animal captures per 100 trap-nights) compared to 271 reptiles and 265 mammals (for species likely to be captured in pitfall traps) across 2572 camera trap nights (20.8 animal captures per 100 trap-nights). When trap effort is taken into account, camera trapping was only 23% as efficient as pitfall trapping for small reptiles (mostly Scincidae), but was five times more efficient for surveying small mammals (Dasyuridae). Comparing only those species that were likely to be captured in pitfall traps, 13 species were recorded by camera trapping compared with 20 species recorded from pitfall trapping; however, we found significant (P<0.001) differences in community composition between the methods. In terms of cost efficacy, camera trapping was the more expensive method for our short, 4-month survey when taking the cost of cameras into consideration.

Conclusions
Applicability of camera trapping is dependent on the specific aims of the intended research. Camera trapping is beneficial where community responses to ecosystem disturbance are being tested. Live capture of small reptiles via pitfall trapping allows for positive species identification, morphological assessment, and collection of reference photos to help identify species from camera photos.

Implications
As stand-alone techniques, both survey methods under-represent the available species present in a region. The use of more than one survey method improves the scope of fauna community assessments.