{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024066390041493777, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.590163934426229, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
PRIVATOPIA ON TRIAL ? PROPERTY GUARDIANSHIP IN THE SUBURBS

This paper explores how distinctions between private and public underpin the concept of guardianship that has been applied to the understanding and control of crime in residential areas. Specifically, it focuses on the guardianship of private property in (affluent) residential suburbs. First, the paper discusses the concept of "natural surveillance'' and identifies its role in the crime prevention theories of Jane Jacobs and Oscar Newman, particularly highlighting the issue of boundary maintenance between private and public space. Second, it presents evidence on property crime victimisation in relation to dwelling type and area sodoeconomic status, drawn from a multivariate model of British Crime Survey data. Third, the paper discusses the ways in which suburbs deliver guardianship "goods" to their residents, including that collectively provided by, for example, "Neighbourhood Watch" Its broad conclusion is that property guardianship in suburbs is likely to be a zero-sum game for residents unless borders can be maintained; in turn, this implies an underlying logic of converting public security goods into exclusive "club goods."