Preventing Repeat Residential Burglary Victimization
This chapter reviews evaluations of the prevention of repeat residential burglary. These evaluations are a subset of the evaluations relating to the prevention of repeat victimization. The review methodology aims to follow that of the systematic review process proposed by the Campbell Collaboration, which has produced a series of recent reviews including, Farrington and Welsh (2002) and the set of reviews edited by Farrington and Welsh (2001). In keeping with that format, the authors acknowledge a possible interest: We have both previously worked on repeat victimization prevention efforts and elsewhere contended that preventing repeat victimization is a potentially attractive crime prevention strategy.
The carbon cost of crime
Cutting carbon emissions is a global priority, wherever they occur, and those associated with crime are no exception. This research project explores the carbon cost of crime and crime prevention to ensure that carbon emissions can be considered wherever possible. Although this study focuses on crime in England and Wales as a case study, this can be applied elsewhere around the world. 
A lifecycle perspective was adopted throughout, to ensure that all aspects of the carbon footprint were accounted for. The carbon footprint of crime was estimated using Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis (EE-IOA) multipliers, and crime prevention measures were analysed by systematically reviewing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) environmental declarations. 
The study estimated that crime in England and Wales gave rise to over 4 million tCO2e in the year 2011, representing the ‘carbon cost of crime’. The falling number of criminal offences has resulted in a reduced carbon footprint from around 7 million tCO2e in 1995 to below 3 million tCO2e in 2015 (a cumulative reduction of over 54 million tCO2e). 
To explore burglary prevention measures, the carbon footprint was combined with an indicator of how secure against burglary the products were. Window and door locks were shown to be the highest performing individual measures with low carbon footprints and the highest chance of preventing crime. The highest performing combinations included window locks, internal lighting, door locks and external lighting. Burglar alarms were the worst performing measure, from both environmental and security perspectives. 
Overall, it is clear that crime and crime prevention have a carbon cost, and that carbon emissions need to be assessed and reduced wherever possible. The study has contributed towards informing practitioners and policy-makers of this connection between crime and the environment. If a low crime and low-carbon future is to be achieved, the encouraging trend of a decreasing carbon footprint attributable to crime needs to be maintained, and strategies must take into account environmental considerations alongside social and economic benefits.
Multiple Victimization: Evidence, Theory, and Future Research
Without exception, victimization surveys over the past fifteen years have found that the great majority of the surveyed population report that none of the incidents they were asked about had happened to them during the period covered; a minority report that they experienced one incident; and successively smaller proportions generally report having experienced two, three . . . n incidents. This last group has been referred to, rather misleadingly,' as "multiple victims;" it is this group, and their experiences, with which this article is concerned. The phenomenon of multiple victimization raises a number of problems. Some of these problems are methodological; in particular, multiple victims pose a host of problems for those interested in victimization surveys, especially those surveys, such as the National Crime Surveys now being carried out by the United States Census Bureau for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which aim to measure the volume of certain crimes or victimization in the general population. Multiple victims also raise some important substantive issues. Why do some people become victims of crime whereas others do not? To what extent can people act in ways that minimize, if not eliminate, the risk of future victimization? What are the social, psychic, and economic costs of being the victim of a crime? The answers to these questions may be no different in the case of multiple victims than for those victimized only once; but even if that is so, those answers may be easier to see if we look at multiple or recurrent victimization rather than occasional, sporadic, or egregious events. This article will review briefly the available evidence on multiple