Criminological theories have been used on a micro and macro scale to seek an answer as to why people commit crimes. Broken windows theory and routine activities theory were selected because the two theories provide different perspectives on why crime occurs and how to solve it. The theories will be examined to obtain historical origins, outline the main principles, distinguishing characteristics, misconceptions and criticisms of each theory. Broken Window Theory Origins James Wilson and George Kelling originally developed the broken window theory as a hypothesis in their 1982 article in The Atlantic: The Policing and Safety of the Neighborhood, the idea was later expanded by George Kelling and Catherine Coles. The broken windows theory suggests that one broken window will lead to another through social disorder. Their theory suggested that unaddressed disorder could potentially lead to increased fear of crime; increased fear causes the community to retreat and take precautions or stop using community areas. The result is a decline and collapse of community controls, leading to more serious crime and disorder. Famous psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in 1969 to support the broken windows idea, before the theory was built. Zimbardo left a car unattended without license plates and with the hood open in the Bronx in New York City, within 10 minutes the car was looted by vandals, Zimbardo did the same in Palo Alto, California, but this time the car it remained intact until Zimbardo broke one of the windows himself, only then was the car searched. (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).Central PrinciplesWilson and Kelling outlined the main concepts of their theory in......middle of the article......macro and micro theories of crime can be criticized at the micro level. Routine activity explains why an offender may choose to commit a crime, but it fails to explain why some chose not to commit a crime when the three criteria are met, while others chose to commit a crime. Miethe and Meier (1994) explained that routine activity fails to explain crime motivation, which becomes a major flaw when using routine activity theory to account for certain types of crimes. Finally, routine activity fails to account for impulsive crime, such as thefts that occur in front of a capable guardian or robberies. Conclusion Broken windows and routine activation theory were both generated in the 1980s as potential explanations for crime. Both theories can examine crime at a macro level, which is crucial for the environmental criminologist, while routine activity can