Introduction

There are three key reasons why research into farm crime is essential: (i) the social and economic impacts of crime on rural, regional and remote communities can be significant;(ii) the notion that there exists some kind of ‘rural idyll’ is misguided and has been routinely and regularly rejected; and (iii) there exists an array of peculiarities associated with policing, victimisation and other issues for which urban-derived theoretical and practical approaches do not necessarily translate to rural settings.

The true extent to which farms are victimised is difficult to measure. Not all victimisation against farms is recorded in official crime statistics, meaning that policy and decision makers cannot obtain an accurate understanding of the true extent of rural offending rates and patterns. It also creates difficulty for policing organisations in determining where best to direct their crime prevention efforts and messaging.

So, further and ongoing research is essential.

To ascertain perceptions of farmers in Victoria, Australia to issues around farm crime victimisation, policing and crime prevention, a quantitative survey instrument was developed to collect data. Consisting of 47 mostly closed-ended questions, survey responses (n=906) were collected between August 2017 and December 2018.

The purpose of this page is not to provide a detailed analysis of the results of the survey: a number of publications (see references at bottom) have done this already to an extent. Rather, this page provides the results of this study, highlighting key findings.

Should any researchers wish to access the survey instrument for replication or modification for use in other jurisdictions, please contact the corresponding author. A number of scholars are doing just this, and it is hoped that an extensive international cadre of farm crime scholars might at some point engage in a comparative global analysis on this topic.

Corresponding author: Dr Alistair Harkness

Co-Director of the University of New England's Centre for Rural Criminology

Senior Lecturer in Criminology, School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia 2351

Email: alistair.harkness@une.edu.au

Twitter: @AHarkness and @RuCrim

Recommended citation

Harkness, A. (2021). Victorian Farm Crime Survey. Armidale, NSW: The Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England. Retrieved from https://express.adobe.com/page/H4jeQ3vvA7bsO/

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Jo-ann Larkins and Kerry de Vent for their guidance and assistance with the statistical analysis performed for this project; to the Victorian Farmers Federation for their assistance in distributing the survey; to various members of Victoria Police for their support of this project; to Jo-ann Larkins and Melina Stewart-North for assistance in data collection at an agricultural show; to the many farmers and their families who participated in the research; and to Kyle Mulrooney for his ongoing advice.

Summary

Thefts from farms can be devastating for individuals and communities in rural settings, provincial towns, smaller urbanised regional areas and at the urban fringe. These impacts can be both social and economic.

A state-wide survey of Victorian farmers was conducted in 2017-18. It found that victimisation rates are high: two-thirds of farmers (68%) reported having been a victim of theft from their farms. Common items stolen were equipment and tools, farm supplies and inputs, livestock and machinery.

Given high levels of victimisation, it is unsurprising that farmers express high levels of fear of crime. 59 percent of Victorian farmers classify crime in their local area as serious or very serious.

51 percent of farmers are fairly worried or very worried about their home being broken into and something stolen, and 70 percent of farmers are fairly worried or very worried about having things stolen from outside the farm house, such as from sheds and paddocks

There exists, though, a ‘dark figure of crime’ – where crime occurs but is not reported and recorded. Reasons offered for not reporting farm crime are many and varied. There may be concerns that reports of offending behaviour will not be taken seriously or that nothing can be done.

A lack of evidence or uncertainty as to whether a crime has actually been committed or that too much time has passed inhibits some from reporting. And oftentimes there are concerns that the offender is known and living in a community and there exists fear of reprisal.

Farms can be targeted by organised criminals or by opportunistic offenders, and that there are certain unique features of rural areas that contribute to farm victimisation. Distances between settlements and properties are much greater than in urbanised environments. Population densities are significantly lower and local policing presences are much sparser. Consequently, the risk/reward calculation made by a potential offender is skewed to them favourably as there are many valuable assets on farms yet ‘eyes’ in the paddock are sparse.

Non-reporting affects resourcing decisions. If the reality of farm crime is not known, then appropriate attention cannot be paid at either local or state-wide levels. It also means that the weight of the law will not be applied to those who engage in criminality – after all, investigations can only occur after reports are made.

A rural idyll?

In rural settings, a significant proportion of farms in Australia experience crime (Barclay, Donnermeyer, Doyle and Talary, 2001; Carcach, 2002). Farm victimisation can impact ‘the entire rural community and the wider agricultural industry’ (McCall and Homel, 2003). In addition to direct financial costs to the Australian economy, productive farmers leave the sector as a consequence of victimisation, and there are other financial and social costs throughout the agricultural sector (Anderson and McCall 2005). The notion that there might exist a crime-free rural idyll has been debunked by numerous scholars (see, for example, Harris and Harkness, 2016).

What we know from previous Australian research

There exists some state (but not Victoria or contemporary national) research – thus, we have an incomplete picture of farm crime. A variety of methodologies have been previously utilised and, apart from the NSW Farm Crime Survey 2020, much of the existing Australian research is now dated. We do know, though, that victimisation is high amongst farmers, and that the impacts of crime are heighted at certain times – such as amidst drought (Barclay et al, 2001; Barclay, 2003; Carcach, 2002; Laird, Granville and Montgomery, 1999; McCall, 2003; McCall and Homel, 2003).

Farms are vulnerable to theft because of a variety of socio-demographic factors, geographic and evidence factors and specific crime prevention behaviours.

Context of this study

The State of Victoria is located in the south-east of the Australian mainland, and at the August 2016 Census had a population of approximately six million persons. Approximately a quarter (24.2%) of Victoria’s population live outside of Greater Melbourne in regional and rural Victoria.

The age profile is skewed higher in non- metropolitan Melbourne with 40 percent of residents aged over 50 compared with 30 percent in Greater Melbourne (ABS, 2017), and a median age of 43 compared with 36 in Greater Melbourne (ABS Quickstats for Census, 2016).

A feature of rural policing in Victoria is the existence of Agricultural Liaison Officers (AGLOs) introduced in 2011 to provide expert advice regarding farm crime, conduct investigations and maintain relationships with communities. They were renamed as Farm Crime Liaison Officers (FCLOs) in September 2019.

FCLOs are general duties detectives and uniformed officers located at rural and regional police stations, most of whom have pre-existing farm experience, a farming background, qualifications, or a general interest in farming. They are not full-time rural investigators, and must juggle this responsibility with other duties (see Harkness, 2015; Harkness and Larkins, 2019) - and the model used in Victoria constrasts with those used in other jurisdictions, such as in New South Wales (see Mulrooney, 2021).

Methodology

An almost exclusively quantitative survey instrument of 47 questions was developed - dominated with five point Likert scales - requiring no more than 10 minutes for respondents to complete. This survey sought responses to an array of matters including:

• perceptions of crime and criminal justice
• reporting of crime
• attitudes to police / rural policing
• crime prevention and awareness
• use of police / other social media platforms

Responses were collected over a 16-month period, initially only as an online survey (hosted on Survey Monkey) publicised to Victorian farmers via Twitter posts and then on four occasions promoted to members of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) with a link included with a weekly news update.

To improve response rates, a four-page hardcopy survey containing the same questions was prepared, and then distributed to approximately 6,000 members of the VFF as an enveloped inclusion with the organisation’s annual magazine (for more on farm crime surveying techniques including on this survey, refer to Harkness, Mulrooney and Donnermeyer, forthcoming 2022).

Of the 906 responses received, a small number of hardcopy responses (n=55) were obtained from the researcher setting up a stall at two police-organised ‘farm crime expos’, his attendance at a farm crime themed breakfast meeting of farmers, at a farm crime focus group, and at a University stall at an agricultural show.

• Hard copies at farm and security events (July 2017 – April 2018)
• Online copy advertised by VFF to their membership; and on Twitter (July 2017 – November 2018)
• Hard copy with reply paid envelope with 6,000 VicFarmer (VFF) magazines (October 2018)

Some of the data entry into Survey Monkey was performed by a research assistant; most was undertaken by the principal researcher. Data entry took approximately three to four minutes per survey – longer when additional handwritten comments were provided. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS.

Respondent demographics

There were 906 respondents, skewed more heavily to male (71.1%) compared with female (28.9%); and was skewed older: over 55 years of age (66.5%) compared with 18-34 (3.9%) and 35-54 (26.6%). Respondents mostly have full time farming businesses (81.9%) compared with part time farming businesses (11.9%), hobby farms (4.4%) or retired and no longer producing (1.8%).

Victimisation

Three-fifths of respondents indicated that they or someone else on their farm had been a victim of a crime or offence. Police came to know about the matter on 85.1 percent of occasions.

Approximately two-thirds (68.1%) of respondents reported being a victim of theft from their farms, with over a quarter (27.4%) indicating that the most recent occurrence was within 12 months prior to completing the survey.

The survey found that the primary offences of acquisitive crime experienced by farmers were the theft of farm equipment and tools (39.9%), farm inputs and supplies (32.1%), and livestock and machinery (31.8%).

Although almost 80 percent of thefts were reported to police, less than 10 percent of stolen items were recovered.

Approximately half of thefts (50.3%) occurred on the farm within sight of public roads, and almost a third (32.7%) from around a respondent's residences and sheds.

Seriousness of and worry about crime

59 percent of respondents classify crime in their area as either a little bit serious of very serious.

The biggest cause of worry for respondents is having items stolen from round the farm, such as from sheds and paddocks - 69.9 percent are fairly or very worried about this occurring.

Specifically, respondents considered the following to be the most serious (either a little bit serious or very serious): illegal rubbish dumping (62.1%); and speeding traffic/hoon driving (54.4%).

Thoughts on police in local area

Participants were asked to consider eight perspectives of police in their local area. Note that the highlighted cells indicate the highest percentage response for each category.

For each statement, more people “agreed” that they were satisfied in each category except for:

• “I am satisfied that enough is being done by Victoria Police to prevent crime in my area for which most people” - in this case 42.61% neither agreed nor disagreed
• “Local police are well resourced” - in this case 38.30% neither agreed nor disagreed

For the opinion of “disagree AND strongly disagree”, most people disagreed with:

• Local police are well resourced (45.85% disagreed or strongly disagreed)
• I am satisfied that enough is being done by Victoria Police to prevent crime in my area (32.24% disagreed or strongly disagreed)
• My local police are accessible when I need them (29.82% disagreed or strongly disagreed)

Victimisation of respondents compared with thoughts on police in the local area

In all the categories relating to thoughts on police in the local area:

• Farmers who have not been a victim “agreed” more over categories relating to thoughts of police (had a better opinion of police)
• People who have been a victim tended to disagree and strongly disagree more relating to thoughts of police (had a poorer opinion of police)
• The farmers who “neither agree or disagree” were mixed regarding whether they have been a victim.

Finding: farmers who have been a victim of crime have less positive thoughts on police in the local area (note lower number below, equals better opinion of police).

These findings are similar to the question “have you or someone on your farm ever been a victim of crime or offence”? (see below).

Thoughts on police and victimisation of respondent or someone else on the farm

Using the overall sum of police opinions, comparison is made of the mean thoughts of police with “have you or someone on your farm ever been a victim of crime or offence” (note lower number below equals better opinion of police). Farmers / others on farm who have not been a victim had a better opinion of police.

Thoughts on police and attitude to crime in the local area

Using the overall sum of police opinions, comparison is made of the mean thoughts of police with “How would you classify crime in your local area generally?”

Respondents who classify crime as more serious have a lesser opinion on police overall. Respondents who say crime is “not at all serious” have a greater opinion of police (lower numbers indicate greater satisfaction).

Belonging to a formal local organisation

Illustrated below is a comparison between membership of local civic organisations (respondents were provided with a list from which to choose) and their satisfaction with the standard of policing in their local area. Results are coloured coded from green (highest percentage), through orange (middle category) to red (lowest percentage). Respondents who indicated that they were “not involved with any formal community organisation” had a lower amount of satisfaction with the police as well as a higher amount of dissatisfaction. Overall people who belong to community groups were more likely to say they were satisfied with local law enforcement.

Findings: People who said “not involved with any formal community organisation” had lower “satisfied” (38.3%) as well as higher “highly dissatisfied” (6.4%). Overall people who belong to community groups were more likely to choose “satisfied”.

To explore this further, police opinion questions were added together. A smaller number indicates greater satisfaction with the police. Red = high values and green = low values).

People that were not involved with any community groups had a larger number (lower satisfaction with policing)

People who had more satisfaction with police belonged to:

• Neighbourhood Watch
• SES
• Senior citizens group

Satisfaction with a recent police encounter

People who had a recent encounter with police (within previous six months) were less satisfied with overall standard of policing in the area.

For the people who had a recent encounter, 43.8% said they were “satisfied” with policing in the area. This compares with 49.4% of people who did not have a recent encounter with a police officer.

Of people who had a recent encounter with police, 5.2% were highly dissatisfied with the standard of policing in the area. This compares with 1.8% who did not have a recent encounter with police.

Reluctance to report farm crime

Compiled from a variety of literature / research sources, non-reporting of farm crime can be divided into institutional, evidence and community reasons.

Reporting thefts from farms to police

The majority of respondents (66.9%) would report any theft from their property “All off the time”.

In a comparison of sum of the thoughts of police with “I would report any theft from my farm to the police”, people who would report theft “All of the time” have a better opinion of police. Again, a smaller number indicates greater satisfaction with the police. People who would report theft “All of the time”, have a better opinion of police.

Reluctance to reporting

The most common reasons for reluctance in reporting theft from farms:

• A belief there is not enough evidence for police to proceed
• It may be difficult to tell if a crime has occurred

Sum of thoughts of police compared with reasons for not reporting

Using the overall sum of police opinions, comparison of the thoughts of police with various reasons for reluctance in reporting a theft from a farm. The reason that “A belief police would do nothing about it” was associated with less satisfaction/opinions of police.

Farm crime (Agricultural) Liaison Officers

Between 2011 and 2019, Victoria Police had a team of Agricultural Liaison Officers (AGLOs): they were renamed in 2019 as Farm Crime Liaison Officers, but the term 'AGLO' was used in this survey instrument. These officers perform their role in addition to other general policing/detective duties, and specifically focusing on farm crime investigation, an education role and providing more detailed analysis, assessment and review of rural crime.

66.9% of respondents were not aware of the existence of AGLOs.

However, people who were aware of AGLOs had a slightly better opinion/thoughts on police.

Most people had not had an encounter with an AGLO (81.6%).

People who have had an encounter with an AGLO have a slightly poorer opinion of police (lower numbers indicate greater satisfaction).

Considering the location where an encounter had taken place, people who interacted with the AGLO at the stockyards had a better opinion of police overall. People who interacted with the AGLO at a police station had a poorer opinion of police overall. Note: lower numbers indicate greater satisfaction.

Most people were “satisfied” with the experience with the AGLO they met.

People who were highly satisfied with their encounter with the AGLO, had a more favourable opinion of police in general (lower numbers indicate greater satisfaction).

Below is a table comparing experience with AGLO with “how satisfied with police in the local area”. Most people are satisfied with both AGLOs and local police. However, AGLOs have more “highly satisfied" (32.8% of people were highly satisfied with experience with AGLO, compared with only 6.3% who were highly satisfied with local police. Also, people were more dissatisfied with local police than AGLOs.

Punitiveness

Four prompts were offered to measure degrees of punitiveness:

• "There should be tougher laws and penalties for thefts from farms"
• "The courts are too lenient on people who steal from farms"
• "The conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low"
• "The criminal justice system is too soft"

"There should be tougher laws and penalties for thefts from farms."

Almost half (48.9%) of respondents strongly agree that there should be tougher laws and penalties for thefts from farms.

People who “strongly agree” that there should be tougher laws and penalties were more likely to be “highly dissatisfied” with the standard of policing. 4.6 percent of people who strongly agree that there should be stronger penalties were highly dissatisfied with standard of policing, compared with 1.0 percent who “agreed” and 0.9 percent who neither agreed nor disagreed.

People who “strongly agree” that there should be tougher laws and penalties were less likely to be “satisfied” with the standard of policing. 43 percent of people who “strongly agree” that there should be tougher laws and penalties were satisfied with the standard of policing in the area, compared with 51.3 percent for agree, and 48.7 percent for “neither agree nor disagree”

The overall sum of thoughts of police is compared with “there should be tougher laws and penalties for thefts for farms” (a smaller number indicates greater satisfaction with the police).

People who strongly agree that “there should be tougher laws and penalties for thefts for farms” have lesser opinions of police. People who disagree that that “there should be tougher laws and penalties for thefts for farms” have higher overall opinions of police.

"The courts are too lenient on people who steal from farms."

47.4 percent of respondents strongly agree that the courts are too lenient on people who steal from farms.

People who “strongly agree” that the courts are too lenient were more likely to be “highly dissatisfied” with the standard of policing. 3.5 percent of people who strongly agree that the courts are too lenient are highly dissatisfied with standard of policing, compared with 2.5 percent who “agreed” and 1.3 percent who neither agreed nor disagreed.

People who “strongly agree” that the courts are too lenient were less likely to be “satisfied” with the standard of policing. 43.1 percent of people who “strongly agree” that the courts are too soft were satisfied with the standard of policing in the area, compared with 48.2 percent for agree and 54.5 percent for “neither agree nor disagree”.

The overall sum of thoughts of police is compared with “the courts are too lenient on people who steal from farms” (a smaller number indicates greater satisfaction with the police).

People who strongly agree that “The courts are too lenient on people who steal from farms” have lesser opinions of police.

"The conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low."

Most people (46.3%) strongly agree that the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low.

People who “strongly agree” that the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low, were more likely to be “highly dissatisfied” OR “dissatisfied” with the standard of policing. 4.1 percent of people who strongly agree the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low are highly dissatisfied with standard of policing, compared with 2.3 percent who “agreed” and 0 percent who “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed”.

People who “strongly agree” that the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low, were less likely to be “satisfied” with the standard of policing. 40.5 percent of people who “strongly agree” that the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low, were satisfied with the standard of policing in the area, compared with 50.5 percent for agree, and 59.3 percent for “neither agree nor disagree”

The overall sum of thoughts of police is compared with “the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low” (a smaller number indicates greater satisfaction with the police).

People who strongly agree that “the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low” have lesser opinions of police.

The criminal justice system is too soft

46 percent of respondents strongly agreed with the statement that the criminal justice system is too soft.

People who “strongly agree” that criminal justice system is too soft” were less likely to be “satisfied” with the standard of policing. 42.7 percent of people who “strongly agree” that the conviction rate for farm theft offences is far too low were satisfied with the standard of policing in the area, compared with 49.8 percent for agree and 51.7 percent for “neither agree nor disagree”.

The overall sum of thoughts of police is compared with “the criminal justice system is too soft” (a smaller number indicates greater satisfaction with the police). People who strongly agree that “the criminal justice system is too soft” have poorer opinions of police.

What can police do differently?

Most people (485) say that police should take stronger action on property theft, followed by 462 people who say more random patrols/physical presence are needed.

Responsibility for crime prevention

Barclay, Donnermeyer, Doyle and Talary (2001, p. 99), in a study of farmers’ attitudes to farm crime security, found almost 60 percent of farmers believed that farm crime prevention is the responsibility of primary producers themselves; farmers by law ought to have formal identification on farm machinery and equipment (45%); and that they had the ability to prevent crime occurring on their farm (53%), although 33 percent also indicated a sense of inevitability that crime would occur anyway and that “there was little they could do physically to prevent crime occurring”.

76.7 percent of respondents in the current study ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that people need to take more personal responsibility for crime prevention.

44.1 percent of respondents ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that preventing crime is the job of the police.

The association between the opinion of “Farmers need to take personal responsibility” and the classification of crime in local area was also explored. The results were mixed: farmers who classify crime as ‘very serious’ are more likely to strongly agree that ‘farmers need to take more personal responsibility for crime prevention (20%). However, farmers who classify crime as ‘very serious’ are less likely to agree that farmers need to take more responsibility. The association between these variables was non-significant (χ2 =23.081, p=0.112 (refer also to Harkness and Larkins, 2020, pp. 234-235).

Use of crime prevention measures

In this survey, 71 percent of farmers regularly locked their farmhouse when not present. Over half of farmers undertook situational crime prevention measures such as counting livestock regularly (59%), storing machinery, fuel and so on out of sight of the main road (59%) and locking vehicles (55%). The take up of technological approaches such as cameras, security lights and alarms was much lower at around 20 percent. Marking of property and accurate recording of property details were of a very low priority.

Readiness to use new property marking measures

When asked about their readiness to utilise new property marking measures, three quarters of farmers (74.7%) either agreed or strongly agreed they would readily use such measures.

Online engagement with Victoria Police

Asked "Which of the following VICTORIA POLICE information resources have you used in the last six months?", almost 80 per cent of respondents indicated they had used none. Those who had engaged with police social media indicated the Victoria Police Facebook site as the most used (14.7%).

Engagement with other information sources

Asked "Which of the following OTHER information resources have you used in the last six months?", three quarters (75.1%) of respondents indicted reading about a crime story in the local newspaper.

References

ABARES. (2018). About my region – Victoria. Canberra, ACT: Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Retrieved 1/11/2018 from http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/aboutmyregion/vic#regional-overview

ABS. (2017). Regional population by age and sex, Australia, 2017. Cat. No. 3235.0. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 30/4/2019 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3235.0Main%20Features32017?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3235.0&issue=2017&num=&view

ABS. (2018). Quickstats for Census 2016. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved 1/11/2018 from https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/2?opendocument

Anderson, K.M. and McCall, M. (2005). Farm crime in Australia. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department. Retrieved from https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi119

Barclay, E, Donnermeyer, J.F., Doyle, B. and Talary, D. (2001). Property crime victimisation and crime prevention on farms. Report to the NSW Attorney-General’s Crime Prevention Division. Armidale, NSW: Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England. Retrieved from https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/19059/2001-crime-prevention-report.pdf

Carcach, C. (2002). Farm victimisation in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 235. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi235

Harkness, A. (2015, July). Policing strategies to farm crime: Lessons from Victoria. Crime Justice and Social Democracy Conference proceedings (pp. 18-26). Brisbane, Qld: Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/19820/1/__network.uni_staff_S2_Mmaxwell_RDS_Desktop_ConferenceProceedings_3rdInternationalCJSDConference_2015.pdf

Harkness, A. (2016). Farm crime: The forgotten frontier. In A. Harkness, B. Harris and D. Baker (Eds), Locating crime in context and place: Rural and regional perspectives (pp. 96-107). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Book available from https://federationpress.com.au/product/locating-crime-in-context-and-place-perspectives-on-regional-rural-and-remote-australia/

Harkness, A. (2018, 2 May). Rural crime: Under-reporting thefts from farmers creates vicious cycle. The Weekly Times. Retrieved 4 May 2019 from https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/opinion/rural-crime-underreporting-thefts-from-farmers-creates-vicious-cycle/news-story/28ac242daf7dcf190a20ec3884106704

Harkness, A. (2017). Crime prevention on farms: Experiences from Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 3(2), 131-156. https://doi.org/10.18061/1811/81050

Harkness, A. and Larkins, J. (2019). Farmer satisfaction with policing in rural Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Rural Criminology, 5(1). 47-68. https://doi.org/10.18061/1811/88729

Harkness, A. and Larkins, J. (2020). Technological approaches to preventing property theft from farms. In A. Harkness (ed), Rural crime prevention: Theory, tactics and techniques (pp. 226-244). London: Routledge. Book available from https://www.routledge.com/Rural-Crime-Prevention-Theory-Tactics-and-Techniques/Harkness/p/book/9780367483661

Harkness, A., Mulrooney, K and Donnermeyr, J.F. (2022). Surveying in rural settings. In R.A. Weisheit, J.R. Peterson and A. Pytlarz (Eds.) Research methods for rural criminologists. London: Routledge. Book available from https://www.routledge.com/Research-Methods-for-Rural-Criminologists/Weisheit-Peterson-Pytlarz/p/book/9780367632885

Harris, B. and Harkness A. (2016). Introduction: Locating regional, rural and remote crime in theoretical and contemporary context. In A. Harkness, B. Harris and D. Baker (Eds.), Locating crime in context and place: Perspectives on regional, rural and remote Australia (pp. 1-12). Sydney, NSW: The Federation Press. Book available from https://federationpress.com.au/product/locating-crime-in-context-and-place-perspectives-on-regional-rural-and-remote-australia/

Laird, A., Granville, S. and Montgomery, R. (1999). Crime and the farming community: The Scottish Farm Crime Survey 1998. Edinburgh: The Scottish Office Central Research Unit. https://www.worldcat.org/title/crime-and-the-farming-community-the-scottish-farm-crime-survey-1998/oclc/41389519

McCall, M. (2003). Results from the 2001-2002 National Farm Crime Survey. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 266. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi266

McCall, M and Homel, P. (2003). Preventing crime on Australian farms: Issues, current initiatives and future directions. Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, 268. Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi268

Mulrooney, K.J.D. (2021). The NSW Farm Crime Survey 2020. The Centre for Rural Criminology, University of New England. Retrieved from https://spark.adobe.com/page/zsV05pknxXl7N/

World Bank Group. (2019). Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (% of GDP). Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS