Does Target-hardening Result in Deadlier Terrorist Attacks against Protected Targets? An Examination of Unintended Harmful Consequences

Abstract

Objectives: This study examines whether the use of target-hardening measures engenders greater amounts of casualty terrorist attacks against protected targets. Specifically, this study evaluates the impact of augmenting aviation security and protection of U.S. embassies and diplomats on the frequency and proportion of casualty attacks against aviation targets and U.S. diplomatic targets, respectively. Method: Using time-series data from the Global Terrorism Database (1970 to 2001), this study conducts time-series intervention analysis. To provide a more comprehensive test, a variety of supplementary analyses—consisting of data transformations, various onsets of the interventions, autoregressive integrated moving average, Poisson, and vector autoregression models of time-series data—are performed. Results: We found no increase in the frequency or proportion of casualty attacks against protected targets following target-hardening interventions. The results show that the typical ensuing terrorist attack against hardened targets is not violence based (i.e., maximizing casualties). Conclusions: Findings that attacks against hardened targets did not become deadlier provide support for the criminological message that unintended harmful effects from situational terrorism prevention strategies are the exception rather than the rule.

Situational Crime Prevention and Terrorism: An Assessment of 10 Years of Research

“…Subsequently, in the period beyond our study’s time frame, Hsu and colleagues (Hsu & McDowall, 2017; Hsu et al, 2018) published two additional studies. One study empirically investigated the assumption that once a prime-target country increases the price of attacks, terrorists will shift their attention to prime-targets overseas.…”

“…Importantly, the 2015 peak in SCP and terrorism studies ( n = 9) is less related to the publication of special issues and instead is constituted by an array of relevant scholarly studies published in both terrorism and criminal justice journals. In the period subsequent to our study’s time period, at least nine additional works (see for example, Hsu & McDowall, 2017; Hsu, Vasquez, & McDowall, 2018; Lasley & Guffey, 2017; Mandala, 2017; Mandala & Freilich, 2017, 2018; Romyn & Kebbell, 2018; St. George, 2017; Yang & Jen, 2017) were published using SCP to study terrorism.…”

Examining the state repression‐terrorism nexus: Dynamic relationships among repressive counterterrorism actions, terrorist targets, and deadly terrorist violence in Israel

“…For instance, a heightened frequency of attacks against civilian or state targets may indicate a particular strategic terrorist response to government repression. Another example is that an increase in the proportion of casualty attacks shows that terrorism is becoming deadlier as a whole, indicating a greater likelihood that ensuing terrorist attacks result in human injuries or fatalities (Enders & Sandler, 2000; Hsu & McDowall, 2017).…”

Radicalized Environmental Extremism and Situational Decision Making

“…An important element of ideological crime is that attacks often involve the exploitation of opportunities through determination, careful planning, and deliberate decision-making processes (e.g., Clarke and Newman 2006; Gill, Horgan, and Deckert 2014; Smith and Damphousse 2009). Consequently, some have suggested rational choice and deterrence models are important for understanding extremism (see LaFree, Dugan, and Korte 2009). Here researchers are interested in the extent to which governmental policies make these crimes riskier and less rewarding.…”