Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 305–325 | Cite as

Crime Places in Context: An Illustration of the Multilevel Nature of Hot Spot Development

  • Rustu Deryol
  • Pamela Wilcox
  • Matthew Logan
  • John Wooldredge
Original Paper



The present study provides an illustration of a statistical test of the Brantinghams’ theory about the formation of hotspots and the effects that nodes, paths, and environmental backcloth have on their development.


We used multilevel Poisson regression analysis to explain variation in the count of incidents at each address. Place-level proximity to nodes and paths was measured by using the Euclidian distance from each location to the closest carry-out liquor store, on-premises drinking establishment, and bus route. The broader environmental backcloth was represented by various census block-group characteristics, including density of commercial land use. A three-way place-level interaction as well as a cross-level interaction involving all four key independent variables were used to estimate the Brantinghams’ concept of the overlay of nodes, paths, and backcloth.


The three-way interaction involving the distance to the closest on-premises liquor establishment, the distance to closest carry-out liquor facility, and the distance to the closest bus route was significantly and negatively related to place-level crime incidents. This three-way interaction had effects which varied across neighborhood contexts, with stronger negative effects on crime occurring in neighborhoods characterized by high levels of commercial density.


This study supported the notion of a multilevel theory of crime places and has implications for more effectively addressing crime. In particular, those places with multiple nodes and paths in their proximal environments and dense commercial land within their broader environments likely need additional crime prevention measures to get the same benefit relative to places with multiple nodes and paths in the proximal environments yet little commercial density within their broader environment.


Hot spots Environmental criminology Risky places Multilevel opportunity 


  1. Anselin L (2003) Spatial externalities, spatial multipliers, and spatial econometrics. Int Reg Sci Rev 26(2):153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellair PE (1997) Social interaction and community crime: examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology 35(4):677–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernasco W, Block R (2009) Where offenders choose to attack: a discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology 47(1):93–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernasco W, Block R (2011) Robberies in chicago: a block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points. J Res Crime Delinq 48(1):33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernasco W, Luykx F (2003) Effects of attractiveness, opportunity and accessibility to burglars on residential burglary rates of urban neighborhoods. Criminology 41(3):981–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braga AA, Hureau DM, Papachristos AV (2011) The relevance of micro places to citywide robbery trends: a longitudinal analysis of robbery incidents at street corners and block faces in Boston. J Res Crime Delinq 48:7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1993a) Environment, routine and situation: toward a pattern theory of crime. In: Clarke Ronald V, Felson Marcus (eds) Routine activity and rational choice—advances in criminological theory, vol 5. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 259–294Google Scholar
  8. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1993b) Nodes, paths and edges: considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. J Environ Psychol 13(1):3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1999) A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Stud Crime Crime Prev 8(1):7–26Google Scholar
  10. Clarke RV (1980) Situational crime prevention: theory and practice. Br J Criminol 20(2):136–147Google Scholar
  11. Clarke RV (1996) Preventing mass transit crime. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke RV, Cornish DB (1985) Modeling offenders’ decisions: a framework for research and policy. In: Tonry Michael, Morris Norval (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 6. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 147–185Google Scholar
  13. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44(4):588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen LE, Felson M, Land KC (1980) Property crime rates in the United States: a macro dynamic analysis, 1947–1977; with ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s. Am J Sociol 1986(1):90–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen LE, Kluegel JR, Land KC (1981) Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: an exposition and test of a formal theory. Am Sociol Rev 46(5):505–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Curman Andrea S N, Andresen Martin A, Brantingham Paul J (2015) Crime and place: a longitudinal examination of street segment patterns in Vancouver, BC. J Quant Criminol 31(1):127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eck J, Chainey S, Cameron J, Leitner M, Wilson R (2005) Mapping crime: understanding hot spots. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  18. Felson M (1987) Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology 25(4):911–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felson M (1994) Crime and everyday life: Insight and implications for society. Pine, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  20. Felson M (2006) Crime and nature. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  21. Felson M, Belanger ME, Bichler GM, Bruzinski CD, Campbell GS, Fried CL, Sweeney PJ (1996) Redesigning hell: preventing crime and disorder at the port authority bus terminal. Willow Tree Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  22. Greenberg SW, Rohe WM, Williams JR (1982) Safety in urban neighborhoods: a comparison of physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime neighborhoods. Popul Environ 5(3):141–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Groff ER, Weisburd D, Yang S (2010) Is it important to examine crime trends at a local “micro” level? A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. J Quant Criminol 26(1):7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gruenewald PJ, Freisthler B, Remer L, LaScala EA, Treno A (2006) Ecological models of alcohol outlets and violent assaults: crime potentials and geospatial analysis. Addiction 101(5):666–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2007) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart TC, Miethe TD (2014) Street robbery and public bus stops: a case study of activity nodes and situational risk. Secur J 27(2):180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kennedy LW, Forde DR (1990) Routine activities and crime: an analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology 28(1):137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kurtz EM, Koons BA, Taylor RB (1998) Land use, physical deterioration, resident-based control, and calls for service on urban street blocks. Justice Q 15(1):121–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LaGrange TC (1999) The impact of neighborhoods, schools, and malls on the spatial distribution of property damage. J Res Crime Delinq 36(4):393–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loukaitou-Sideris A (1999) Hot spots of bus stop crime: the importance of environmental attributes. J Am Plan Assoc 65(4):395–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miethe TD, Hart TC, Regoeczi WC (2008) The conjunctive analysis of case configurations: an exploratory method for discrete multivariate analyses of crime data. J Quant Criminol 24(2):227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miethe TD, McDowall D (1993) Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Soc Forces 71(3):741–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miethe TD, Meier RF (1994) Crime and its social context: toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. Suny Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  34. Outlaw M, Ruback B, Britt C (2002) Repeat and multiple victimizations: the role of individual and contextual factors. Violence Vict 17(2):187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Raudenbush S, Bryk A, Congdon R (2000) HLM for windows. Version 6. Scientific Software International, LincolnwoodGoogle Scholar
  36. Rice KJ, Smith WR (2002) Socioecological models of automotive theft: integrating routine activity and social disorganization approaches. J Res Crime Delinq 39(3):304–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roncek DW, Bell R (1981) Bars, blocks, and crimes. J Environ Syst 11(1):35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roncek DW, Fagianni D (1985) High schools and crime—a replication. Sociol Quart 26(4):491–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roncek DW, LoBosco A (1983) The effects of high schools on crime in their neighborhoods. Soc Sci Q 64(3):598–613Google Scholar
  40. Roncek DW, Maier PA (1991) Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots”. Criminology 29(4):725–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rountree PW, Land KC (1996) Perceived risk versus fear of crime: empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Soc Forces 74(4):1353–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rountree PW, Land KC, Miethe TD (1994) Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: a hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology 32(3):387–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social–disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94(4):774–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sampson RJ, Wooldredge JD (1987) Linking the micro-and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. J Quant Criminol 3(4):371–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shaw CR (1929) Delinquency areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  46. Shaw CR, McKay HD (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  47. Sherman LW, Gartin PR, Buerger ME (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27(1):27–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Simcha-Fagan O, Schwartz JE (1986) Neighborhood and delinquency: an assessment of contextual effects. Criminology 24(4):667–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith DA, Jarjoura GR (1989) Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk. Soc Forces 68(2):621–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith WR, Frazee SG, Davison EL (2000) Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology 38(2):489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Snowden AJ, Pridemore WA (2013) Alcohol and violence in a nonmetropolitan college town alcohol outlet density, outlet type, and assault. J Drug Issues 43(3):357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stucky TD, Ottensmann JR (2009) Land use and violent crime. Criminology 47(4):1223–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor RB (1998) Crime and small-scale places: what we know, what we can prevent, and what else we need to know. In: Crime and place: plenary papers of the 1997 conference on criminal justice research and evaluation. NIJ, Washington, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  54. Taylor RB (2015) Community criminology: fundamentals of spatial and temporal scaling, ecological indicators, and selectivity bias. New York University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor RB, Gottfredson S (1986) Environmental design, crime, and prevention: an examination of community dynamics. In: Reiss AJ Jr, Tonry M (eds) Communities and crime–crime and justice: a review of research, vol 8. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 387–416Google Scholar
  56. Taylor RB, Koons BA, Kurtz EM, Greene JR, Perkins DD (1995) Street blocks with more nonresidential land use have more physical deterioration evidence from Baltimore and Philadelphia. Urban Aff Rev 31(1):120–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Velez MB (2001) The role of public social control in urban neighborhoods: a multilevel analysis of victimization risk. Criminology 39(4):837–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang S (2004) Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42(2):283–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weisburd DL, Groff ER, Yang S (2012) The criminology of place: street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. White GF (1990) Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Q 7(1):57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilcox P, Eck JE (2011) Criminology of the unpopular. Criminol Public Policy 10(2):473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilcox P, Land KC, Hunt SA (2003) Criminal circumstance: a dynamic multi-contextual criminal opportunity theory. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilcox P, Madensen TD, Tillyer MS (2007) Guardianship in context: implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology 45(4):771–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilcox P, Gialopsos B, Land K (2013) Pp. In: Cullen Francis T, Wilcox Pamela (eds) The Oxford handbook of criminological theory. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 579–601Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rustu Deryol
    • 1
  • Pamela Wilcox
    • 2
  • Matthew Logan
    • 3
  • John Wooldredge
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminology, College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of South Florida—Sarasota ManateeSarasotaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Department of CriminologyCalifornia State University—San BernardinoSan BernardinoUSA

Personalised recommendations