Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 449–469 | Cite as

Where the Action is in Crime? An Examination of Variability of Crime Across Different Spatial Units in The Hague, 2001–2009

Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

To identify how much of the variability of crime in a city can be attributed to micro (street segment), meso (neighborhood), and macro (district) levels of geography. We define the extent to which different levels of geography are important in understanding the crime problem within cities and how those relationships change over time.

Methods

Data are police recorded crime events for the period 2001–2009. More than 400,000 crime events are geocoded to about 15,000 street segments, nested within 114 neighborhoods, in turn nested within 44 districts. Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients are used to describe the crime concentration at the three spatial levels. Linear mixed models with random slopes of time are used to estimate the variance attributed to each level.

Results

About 58–69 % of the variability of crime can be attributed to street segments, with most of the remaining variability at the district level. Our findings suggest that micro geographic units are key to understanding the crime problem and that the neighborhood does not add significantly beyond what is learned at the micro and macro levels. While the total number of crime events declines over time, the importance of street segments increases over time.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that micro geographic units are key to understanding the variability of crime within cities—despite the fact that they have received little criminological focus so far. Moreover, our results raise a strong challenge to recent focus on such meso geographic units as census block groups.

Keywords

The criminology of place Crime and place Law of crime concentration Crime trends Street segment Hierarchical model 

References

  1. Andresen MA, Malleson N (2011) Testing the stability of crime patterns: Implications for theory and policy. J Res Crim Delin 48(1):58–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey TC, Gatrell AC (1995) Interactive spatial data analysis, vol 413. Longman Scientific & Technical, EssexGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowers KJ (2014) Risky facilities: crime radiators or crime absorbers? A comparison of internal and external levels of theft. J Quant Criminol 30(3):389–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braga A, Papachristos A, Hureau D (2012) Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Syst Rev 8(8):1–97Google Scholar
  5. Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1999) A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Stud Crime Crime Prev 8(1):2–26Google Scholar
  6. Browne WJ, Subramanian SV, Jones K, Goldstein H (2005) Variance partitioning in multilevel logistic models that exhibit overdispersion. J R Stat Soc Ser A 168(3):599–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgess EW (1967) The growth of the city. An introduction to a research project. In: Park RE, Burgess EW (eds) The city: suggestions for the investigation of human behaviour in the urban environment. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (Original work published 1925)Google Scholar
  8. Bursik RJ Jr, Grasmick HG (1993) Economic deprivation and neighborhood crime rates, 1960–1980. Law Soc Rev 27:263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CBS (2015) Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek/Statistics Netherlands, Den Haag/HeerlenGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke RV, Weisburd D (1994) Diffusion of crime control benefits: observations on the reverse of displacement. Crime Prev Stud 2:165–184Google Scholar
  11. Clear TR, Rose DR, Waring E, Scully K (2003) Coercive mobility and crime: a preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Q 20(1):33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44(4):588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies T, Johnson SD (2015) Examining the relationship between road structure and burglary risk via quantitative network analysis. J Quant Criminol 31:481–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eck JE, Eck EB (2012) Crime place and pollution. Criminol Public Policy 11(2):281–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) (1995) Crime and place. Crime prevention studies, vol 4. Willow Tree Press, Monsey, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Eck JE, Gersh JS, Taylor C (2000) Finding crime hot spots through repeat address mapping. In: Goldsmith V, McGuire PG, Mollenkopf JH, Ross TA (eds) Analyzing crime patterns: frontiers of practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher WD (1958) On grouping for maximum homogeneity. J Am Stat Assoc 53(284):789–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gastwirth JL (1972) The estimation of the Lorenz curve and Gini index. Rev Econ Stat 54(3):306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glyde J (1856) Localities of crime in Suffolk. J Stat Soc Lond 19:102–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gorman DM, Speer PW, Gruenewald PJ, Labouvie EW (2001) Spatial dynamics of alcohol availability, neighborhood structure, and violent crime. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 62(5):628–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 G (eds) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New York, pp 61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hipp JR (2010) A dynamic view of neighborhoods: the reciprocal relationship between crime and neighborhood structural characteristics. Soc Probl 57(2):205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson SD (2010) A brief history of the analysis of crime concentration. Eur J Appl Math 21(4–5):349–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson SD, Bowers KJ (2010) Permeability and burglary risk: Are cul-de-sacs safer? J Quant Criminol 26(1):89–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Long JD (2011) Longitudinal data analysis for the behavioral sciences using R. Sage. Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorenz MO (1905) Methods of measuring the concentration of wealth. Publ Am Stat Assoc 9(70):209–219Google Scholar
  28. Openshaw S (1984) The modifiable areal unit problem. Geo Books, NorwichGoogle Scholar
  29. Park RE (1967) The city: suggestions for the investigation of human behaviour in the urban environment. In Park RE, Burgess EW (eds) The city: suggestions for the investigation of human behaviour in the urban environment. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–46 (Original work published 1925)Google Scholar
  30. Pierce G, Spaar S, Briggs LR (1988) The character of police work strategic and tactical implications. Center for Applied Social Research, BostonGoogle Scholar
  31. Rengert G, Chakravorty S, Bole T, Henderson K (2000) A geographic analysis of illegal drug markets. Crime Prev Stud 11:219–240Google Scholar
  32. Roncek DW (2000) Schools and crime. In: Goldsmith V, McGuire PG, Mollenkopf JH, Ross TA (eds) Analyzing crime patterns: Frontiers of practice. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rowlingson BS, Diggle PJ (1993) Splancs: spatial point pattern analysis code in S-Plus. Comput Geosci 19(5):627–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sampson RJ (2012) Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD (1997) Ecological perspectives on the neighborhood context of urban poverty: past and present. In: Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Aber JL (eds) Neighborhood poverty: policy implications in studying poverty. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  36. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW (2004) Seeing disorder: neighborhood stigma and the construction of “broken windows”. Soc Sci Q 67(4):319–342Google Scholar
  37. Sherman LW, Weisburd D (1995) General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime ‘hot spots’: a randomized study. Justice Q 12(4):625–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Slocum TA, McMaster RB, Kessler FC, Howard HH (2005) Thematic cartography and geographic visualization. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Spelman W (1995) Criminal careers of public places. In: Eck J, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place: crime prevention studies. Willow Tree Press, Monsey, pp 115–142Google Scholar
  41. Taylor RB (2010) Communities, crime, and reactions to crime multilevel models: accomplishments and meta-challenges. J Quant Criminol 26(4):455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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(4):467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vold GB, Bernard TJ, Snipes JB (2002) Theoretical criminology. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisburd D (2015) The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology 53(2):133–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weisburd D, Amram S (2014) The law of concentrations of crime at place: the case of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Police Pract Res 15(2):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weisburd D, Green L (1995) Policing drug hot spots: the Jersey City drug market analysis Experiment. Justice Q 12(4):711–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weisburd D, Maher L, Sherman L (1992) Contrasting crime general and crime specific theory: the case of hot-spots of crime. Adv Criminol Theory 4:45–70Google Scholar
  48. 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(2):283–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 control benefits. Criminology 44(3):549–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma G (2008) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang SM (2012) The criminology of place: street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang SM (2014) Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: the importance of formal and informal social controls. Prev Sci 15(1):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law EnforcementAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.College of Humanities and Social Sciences (Criminology, Law, and Society)George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Law, Institute of CriminologyThe Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations