Spatial Analysis of Urban Agro-Crime in Ogbomoso Olateju Ige James*, Oyenike Adigun Folasade*, Olajoke Abolade*, Olaide Olaiya Remilekun*, Adeyemiand Atanda Timothy** * Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria ** Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban Development, Akinyele Office, Moniya, Ibadan, Nigeria Online published on 25 October, 2016. Abstract This study examined the nature of urban agro-crime experienced by households, susceptibility of urban farms to criminal victimization, causes and effects of urbanagro-crime in Ogbomoso. It also examinedhouseholds' response to urban agro-crime in the area. Primary data were collected through in-depth interview and copies of questionnaire randomly administered to 768 households in Ogbomoso. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The nature of agro-crimeoccurrence experienced by households patterned malicious damage of urban farm property (46.5%), theft and stealing of produce (23.4%), poisoning of animals (16%), illegal hunting of animals (8.6%), barn and store breaking (5.5%). Majority of urban farmers perceived criminal victimization on farm to be very serious and occur at night (28.9%), around middle of the day (23.8%) andearly in the morning (15.2%). Causes of agro-crime were attributedto lack of guardianship(33.6%) resulting from size and distance of farm from the residence, presence of suitable target (29.7%), ostentatious display of wealth (19.1%), andeasy accessibility to property (17.6%). The effects of agro-crimewere mainly fear of being the next victim (35.2%), heavy financial loss (22.3%) andreduced quantityof agricultural products(18%)among others. Perpetrators of crime were apprehended to include the town residents (37.9%), other neighboring farmers (27.3%) and organized criminals (21.5%). The households' response to crime in the study area included sitting of farm close to residence (46.9%), use of guard (28.9%) and fencing of farmland (24.2%). Fencing materials used include wood (37.5%), barb wire (31.6%), concrete fencing (18%)andedges (12.9%). Punishment given to criminals caught in the act included public disgrace (79.7%), lynching (13.3%), and handing over to police (7%). Susceptibility to criminal victimization varies significantly among farms of different sizes. It is suggested that there should be strong surveillance of farmland by farmers' collaborative efforts. Top Keywords Agro crime, Urban, Susceptibility, Criminal. Top |