Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 293–318 | Cite as

Smallest is Better? The Spatial Distribution of Arson and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem

Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study is to explore how the zonation and scale problems of the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) impact on the proportion of variance associated with surrounding areas in relation to micro-place levels of arson. MAUP is related to how geographical areas are constructed, with zonation related to how boundaries are drawn, and scale related to the size of areas.

Methods

Arson point data from 2007 to 2011 are analyzed by means of hierarchical linear modeling in order to compute intra-class correlations (ICCs), the share of variance associated with the higher order geographical units, for geographical units of three different sizes and with three degrees of randomness. Real, administrative, geographical units of two sizes, with mean size of 1.2 and 0.4 square kilometers respectively, are compared both to semi-random and fully-random artificial geographical units of the same size, and to smaller types of units of 0.17 square kilometer size.

Results

The analysis shows that there is little difference between large and medium-sized geographical units, but there is a significant increase in the ICC at the smallest geographical scale. To understand the geography of arson this suggests that the smallest types of units are of the greatest importance. As regards the problem of zonation, the results show that more randomness of boundary placement is associated with lower ICCs.

Conclusion

A key implication of these findings is that community preventive efforts may best be targeted at very small communities such as street blocks rather than larger neighborhoods.

Keywords

Arson MAUP Neighborhood Geography 

References

  1. Aly SS, Zhao J, Li B, Jiang J (2014) Reliability of environmental sampling culture results using the negative binomial intraclass correlation coefficient. SpringerPlus 3:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen MA, Malleson N (2013) Spatial heterogeneity in crime analysis. In: Leitner M (ed) Crime modeling and mapping using geospatial technologies. Springer, Netherlands, pp 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baudains P, Braithwaite A, Johnson SD (2013) Target choice during extreme events: a discrete spatial choice model of the 2011 london riots. Criminology 51:251–285. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernasco W (2010) Modeling micro-level crime location choice: application of the discrete choice framework to crime at places. J Quant Criminol 26:113–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blomqvist P, Johansson H (2008) Brandstatistik—Vad vet vi om anlagd brand. SP Rapport 2008: 48. ISBN 978-91-85829-65-1Google Scholar
  6. Boessen A, Hipp JR (2015) Close-ups and the scale of ecology: land uses and the geography of social context and crime. Criminology 53:399–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braga AA, Clarke RV (2014) Explaining high-risk concentrations of crime in the city: social disorganization, crime opportunities, and important next steps. J Res Crime Delinq 51:480–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1995) Criminality of place. Eur J Crim Policy Res 3:5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ, Vajihollahi M, Wuschke K (2009) Crime analysis at multiple scales of aggregation: a topological approach. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New York, pp 87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruinsma GJ, Pauwels LJ, Weerman FM, Bernasco W (2013) Social disorganization, social capital, collective efficacy and the spatial distribution of crime and offenders an empirical test of six neighbourhood models for a Dutch city. Br J Criminol 53:942–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  12. Bursick RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Bursik RJ Jr (1988) Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: problems and prospects. Criminology 26:519–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantillon D (2006) Community social organization, parents, and peers as mediators of perceived neighborhood block characteristics on delinquent and prosocial activities. Am J Community Psychol 37:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins R (2008) Violence: a micro-sociological theory. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coulton CJ, Korbin J, Chan T, Su M (2001) Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. Am J Community Psychol 29:371–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drucker J (2011) Risk factors of arson. In: Caplan JM, Kennedy LW (eds) Risk terrain modeling compendium. Rutgers Center on Public Security, NewarkGoogle Scholar
  19. Eck JE, Weisburd D (1995) Crime places in crime theory. Crime Place Crime Prev Stud 4:1–33Google Scholar
  20. Felson M (1986) Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In: Cornish D, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Felson M (1994) Crime and everyday life: insight and implications for society. Pine Forge Press, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  22. Flowerdew R (2011) How serious is the modifiable areal unit problem for analysis of English census data? Popul Trends 145:106–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fotheringham AS, Rogerson PA (1993) GIS and spatial analytical problems. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 7:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freedman DA (2006) On the so-called “Huber sandwich estimator” and “robust standard errors”. Am Stat 60:299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerell M (2013) Skadegörelse, bränder, grannskap och socialt kapital (MAPIUS). Malmö University Publications in Urban Studies, MalmöGoogle Scholar
  26. Green M, Flowerdew R (1996) New evidence on the modifiable areal unit problem. In: Longley P, Batty M (eds) Spatial analysis Modelling in a GIS environment. Wiley, New York, pp 41–54Google Scholar
  27. Groff E, Weisburd D, Morris NA (2009) Where the action is at places: examining spatio-temporal patterns of juvenile crime at places using trajectory analysis and GIS. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New York, pp 61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grubesic TH (2006) On the application of fuzzy clustering for crime hot spot detection. J Quant Criminol 22:77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guldåker N, Hallin PO (2013) Stadens bränder. Del 1—Anlagda bränder och Malmös sociala geografi. Holmbergs, MalmöGoogle Scholar
  30. Hallin PO, Jashari A, Listerborn C, Popoola M (2010) Det är inte stenarna som gör ont. Röster från Herrgården, Rosengård—om konflikter och erkännande. Holmbergs, MalmöGoogle Scholar
  31. Hipp JR (2007) Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. Am Sociol Rev 72:659–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hipp JR (2010) Micro-structure in micro-neighborhoods: a new social distance measure, and its effect on individual and aggregated perceptions of crime and disorder. Soc Netw 32:148–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hipp JR, Boessen A (2013) Egohoods as waves washing across the city: a new measure of “Neighborhoods”. Criminology 51:287–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency: an appraisal of analytic models. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Kruger DJ (2008) Verifying the operational definition of neighborhood for the psychosocial impact of structural deterioration. J Community Psychol 36:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kwan MP (2012) The uncertain geographic context problem. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 102:958–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. LaGrange TC (1999) The impact of neighborhoods, schools, and malls on the spatial distribution of property damage. J Res Crime Delinq 36:393–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loeber R, Wikström P-O (2000) Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? A study of male juvenile serious offending, individual risk and protective factors, and neighborhood context. Criminology 38:1109–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lupton R (2003) Neighbourhood effects: can we measure them and does it matter? CASE paper 73. London School of Economics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Maas CJ, Hox JJ (2004) The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 46:427–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malmberg B, Andersson E, Östh J (2013) Segregation and Urban unrest in Sweden. Urban Geogr 34:1031–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marble DF (2000) Some thoughts on the integration of spatial analysis and Geographic Information Systems. J Geogr Syst 2:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matthews SA, Yang T-C (2013) Spatial Polygamy and Contextual Exposures (SPACEs): promoting activity space approaches in research on place and health. Am Behav Sci 57:1057–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald K (2012) They can’t do nothin’ to us today. Thesis Eleven 109:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nakaya T (2000) An information statistical approach to the modifiable areal unit problem in incidence rate maps. Environ Plan A 32:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oberwittler D, Wikström P-OH (2009) Why small is better: advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsmaa GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in geographic criminology. Springer, New York, pp 35–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Openshaw S (1977) A geographical solution to scale and aggregation problems in region building, partitioning and spatial modelling. Trans Inst Br Geogr New Ser 2:459–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Openshaw S (1984) Concepts and techniques in modern geography number 38: the modifiable areal unit problem. Geo Books, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  49. Openshaw S (1996) Developing GIS-relevant zone-based spatial analysis methods. In: Longley P, Batty M (eds) Spatial analysis: modeling in a GIS environment. Wiley, New York, pp 55–73Google Scholar
  50. Orford S, Leigh C (2014) The relationship between self-reported definitions of urban neighborhood and respondent characteristics: a study of Cardiff, UK. Urban Stud 51:1891–1908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ouimet M (2000) Aggregation bias in ecological research: how social disorganization and criminal opportunities shape the spatial distribution of juvenile delinquency in Montreal. Can J Criminol 42:135Google Scholar
  52. Ratcliffe JH (2005) Detecting spatial movement of intra-region crime patterns over time. J Quant Criminol 21:103–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rengert GF, Lockwood B (2009) Geographical units of analysis and the analysis of crime. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New York, pp 109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rikskriminalpolisen (2002). Svensk-engelsk och engelsk-svensk ordlista. Accessed through polisen.seGoogle Scholar
  55. Sampson RJ (2012) Great American City. Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94:774–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (1999) Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods 1. Am J Sociol 105:603–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (2004) Seeing disorder: neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”. Soc Psychol Q 67:319–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sampson RJ, Raudenbusch SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T (2002) Assessing “Neighborhood Effects”: social processes and new directions in research. Ann Rev Sociol 28:443–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shaw CR, McKay HD (1969) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  62. Sherman L (1995) Hot spots of crime and criminal careers of places. In: Eck J, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place: crime prevention studies 4. Willow Tree Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  63. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (2012) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  64. St Jean PKB (2007) Pockets of crime: broken windows, collective efficacy and the criminal point of view. University of Chicago press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Statistics Sweden (2013). Fortsatt ökning av utrikes födda i Sverige. http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Artiklar/Fortsatt-okning-av-utrikes-fodda-i-Sverige/. Accessed 28 Feb 2014
  66. Steenbeek W, Weisburd D (2015) Where the action is in crime? An examination of variability of crime across different spatial units in the Hague, 2001–2009. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10940-015-9276-3 Google Scholar
  67. Sutherland A, Brunton-Smith I, Jackson J (2013) Collective efficacy, deprivation and violence in London. Br J Criminol 53:1050–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor RB (1997) Social order and disorder on street blocks and neighborhoods: ecology, microecology, and the systemic model of social disorganization. J Res Crime Delinq 34:113–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor RB (2010) Communities, crime, and reactions to crime multilevel models: accomplishments and meta-challenges. J Quant Criminol 26:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Terjestam Y, Rydén O (1999) Att leka med elden. En bok om barn, eld och brand. Räddningsverket, KarlstadGoogle Scholar
  71. Tita GE, Radil SM (2010) Making space for theory: the challenges of theorizing space and place for spatial analysis in criminology. J Quant Criminol 26:467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tranmer M, Steel D (2001) Using local census data to investigate scale effects. In: Tate J, Atkinson M (eds) Modelling scale in geographical information science. Wiley, Chichester, pp 105–122Google Scholar
  73. Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang SM (2004) Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42:283–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weisburd D, Wyckoff LA, Ready J, Eck JE, Hinkle JC, Gajewski F (2006) Does Crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime and control benefits. Criminology 44:549–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Weisburd D, Bruinsma GJN, Bernasco W (2009a) Units of analysis in geographic criminology: historical development, critical issues, and open questions. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsmaa GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place units of analysis in geographic criminology. Springer, New York, pp 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Weisburd D, Morris NA, Groff ER (2009b) Hot spots of juvenile crime: a longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington. J Quant Criminol 25:443–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weisburd D, Telep CW, Braga AA (2010) The importance of place in policing. Empirical evidence and policy recommendations. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  78. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang SM (2012) The criminology of place. Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang SM (2014a) The importance of both opportunity and social disorganization theory in a future research agenda to advance criminological theory and crime prevention at places. J Res Crime Delinq 51:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang SM (2014b) Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: the importance of formal and informal social controls. Prev Sci 15:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wikström P-OH, Oberwittler D, Treiber K, Hardie B (2012) Breaking rules: the social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson JQ, Kelling GL (1982) Broken windows. Atl Mon 249:29–38Google Scholar
  83. Wisnieski E, Bologeorges S, Johnson T, Henry DB (2013) The geography of citizen crime reporting. Am J Community Psychol 52:324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wooldredge J (2002) Examining the (Ir)relevance of aggregation bias for multilevel studies of neighborhoods and crime with an example comparing census tracts to official neighborhoods in Cincinatti. Criminology 40:681–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Yule GU, Kendall MG (1950) An introduction to the theory of statistics. Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CriminologyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations