Examining the Relationship Between the Structural Characteristics of Place and Crime by Imputing Census Block Data in Street Segments: Is the Pain Worth the Gain?

Original Paper

Abstract

Objective

The current study proposes unique methods for apportioning existing census data in blocks to street segments and examines the effects of structural characteristics of street segments on crime. Also, this study tests if the effects of structural characteristics of street segments are similar with or distinct from those of blocks.

Methods

This study compiled a unique dataset in which block-level structural characteristics are apportioned to street segments utilizing the 2010 U.S. Census data of the cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach in Orange County, California. Negative binomial regression models predicting crime that include measures of social disorganization and criminal opportunities in street segments and blocks were estimated.

Results

The results show that whereas some of the coefficients tested at the street segment level are similar to those aggregated to blocks, a few were quite different (most notably, racial/ethnic heterogeneity). Additional analyses confirm that the imputation methods are generally valid compared to data actually collected at the street segment level.

Conclusions

The results from the street segment models suggest that the structural characteristics from social disorganization and criminal opportunities theories at street segments may operate as crucial settings for crime. Also the results indicate that structural characteristics have generally similar effects on crime in street segments and blocks, yet have some distinct effects at the street segment level that may not be observable when looking at the block level. Such differences underscore the necessity of serious consideration of the issues of level of aggregation and unit of analysis when examining the structural characteristics-crime nexus.

Keywords

Street segments Structural characteristics Criminal opportunities Social disorganization theory Level of aggregation Unit of analysis 

References

  1. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Springer, BostonMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (2002) Under the hood issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agric Econ 27(3):247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L (2003) Spatial externalities, spatial multipliers, and spatial econometrics. Int Reg Sci Rev 26(2):153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anselin L, Cohen J, Cook D, Gorr W, Tita G (2000) Spatial analyses of crime. Crime Justice 4(2):213–262Google Scholar
  5. Barker RG (1963) On the nature of the environment. J Soc Issues 19(4):17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernasco W, Block RL (2011) Robberies in chicago: a block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points. J Res Crime Delinq 48:33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braga AA (2005) Hot spots policing and crime prevention: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Exp Criminol 1:317–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braga AA, Kennedy DM, Waring EJ, Piehl AM (2001) Problem—oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: an evaluation of boston’s operation ceasefire. J Res Crime Delinq 38:195–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1984) Patterns in crime. MacMillan, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1993) Environment, routine and situation: toward a pattern theory of crime. Adv Criminol Theo 5:259–294Google Scholar
  11. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1995) Criminality of place. Eur J Crim Policy Res 3(3):5–26. doi:10.1007/BF02242925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bursik RJ (1988) Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: problems and prospects. Criminology 26:519–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44(4):588–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen J, Tita G (1999) Diffusion in homicide: explaining a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes. J Quant Criminol 15(4):451–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eck J, Weisburd D (eds) (1995) Crime and place: crime prevention studies (Vol. 4). Willow Tree Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Eck J, Gersh J, Taylor C (2000) Finding crime hot spots through repeat address mapping. In: Mollenkopf J, Ross T (eds) Analyzing crime patterns: frontiers of practice. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  18. Elffers H (2003) Analysing neighbourhood influence in criminology. Stat Neerl 57(3):347–367MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felson M (1987) Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology 25(4):911–932. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00825.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Felson M, Boba R (2010) Crime and everyday life, 4th edn. Sage Publications, CaliforniaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaertner S, Rust M, Dovidio J, Bachman B, Anastasio P (1996) The contact hypothesis: the role of common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority members. In: Nye JL, Brower AM (eds) What’s social about social cognition?. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp 230–260Google Scholar
  22. Groff E, LaVigne NG (2001) Mapping an opportunity surface of residential burglary. J Res Crime Delinq 38:257–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Groff E, Weisburd D, Morris NA (2009).Where the action is at places: Examing spatio-temporal patterns of juvenile crime at places using trajectory analysis and GIS. In Weisburd, Bernasco & Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. Groff E, Weisburd D, Yang S-M (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):7–32. doi:10.1007/s10940-009-9081-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haberman CP, Ratcliffe JH (2015) Testing for temporally differentiated relationships among potentially criminogenic places and census block street robbery counts. Criminology 53(3):457–483. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hipp JR (2007a) Income inequality, race, and place: does the distribution of race and class within neighborhoods affect crime rates? Criminology 48(3):683–723MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hipp JR (2007b) Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. Am Sociol Rev 72:659–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hipp JR (2010) A dynamic view of neighborhoods: the reciprocal relationship between crime and neighborhood structural characteristics. Soc Probl 57(2):205–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hipp JR, Boessen A (2013) Egohoods as waves washing across the city: a new measure of neighborhoods. Criminology 51:287–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Kubrin, CE, Hipp JR. (2014). Do fringe banks create fringe neighborhoods? Examining the spatial relationship between fringe banking and neighborhood crime rates. Justice Quart, 1–30. doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.959036
  32. Kubrin CE, Weitzer R (2003) New directions in social disorganization theory. J Res Crime Delinq 40(4):374–402. doi:10.1177/0022427803256238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee BA, Reardon SF, Firebaugh G, Farrell CR, Matthews SA, O’Sullivan D (2008) Beyond the census tract: patterns and determinants of racial segregation at multiple geographic scales. Am Sociol Rev 73(5):766–791. doi:10.1177/000312240807300504 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marschall MJ, Stolle D (2004) Race and the city: neighborhood context and the development of generalized trust. Polit Behav 26(2):125–153. doi:10.1023/b:pobe.0000035960.73204.64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore MD, Recker NL (2013) Social capital, type of crime, and social control. Crime Delinq. doi:10.1177/0011128713510082 Google Scholar
  36. Morenoff JD (2003) Neighborhood mechanisms and the spatial dynamics of birth weight1. Am J Sociol 108(5):976–1017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oberwittler D, Wikstrom H (2009) Why small is better: advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In Weisburd, Bernasco and Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place: Units of analysis in spatial crime research. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  38. Osgood DW (2000) Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rate. J Quant Criminol 16(1):21–43MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(5):751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raleigh E, Galster G (2014) Neighborhood disinvestment, abandonment, and crime dynamics. J Urban Affairs. doi:10.1111/juaf.12102 Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Sampson RJ, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94(4):774–802. doi:10.1086/229068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Earls F (1999) Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. Am Sociol Rev 64(5):633–660. doi:10.2307/2657367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shaw CR, McKay HD (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. Sherman L, Weisburd D (1995) General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: a randomized, controlled trial. Justice Q 12(4):625–648. doi:10.1080/07418829500096221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sherman L, Gartin P, Buerger M (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27(1):27–56. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00862.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 38:489–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stucky TD, Ottensmann JR (2009) Land use and violent crime. Criminology 47:1223–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taylor RB (1997) Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods: ecology, microecology, and the systemic model of social disorganization. J Res Crime Delinq 34(1):113–155. doi:10.1177/0022427897034001006 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor RB (2015) Community criminology: fundamentals of spatial and temporal scaling, ecological indicators, and selectivity bias. New York University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor RB, Gottfredson SD (1986) Enivronmental design, crime, and prevention: an examination of community dynamics. In: Reiss AJJ, Tonry M (eds) Communities and crime. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 387–416Google Scholar
  52. Van Wilselm, J (2009). Urban streets as micro contexts to commit violence In Weisburd, Bernasco & Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting crime in its place: Units of analysis in spatial crime research. (pp. 199–216). New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  53. Warner BD, Pierce GL (1993) Reexaming social disorganization theory using calls to the police as a measure of crime. Criminology 31(4):493–517. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01139.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weisburd D, Green L (1995) Policing drug hot spots: the jersey city drug market analysis experiment. Justice Q 12:711–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang S-M (2004a) Trajetories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42(2):283–322. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00521.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weisburd D, Lum C, Yang S-M (2004b). The criminal careers of places: a longitudinal study (N. I. o. Justice/NCJRS, Trans.) (pp. 112). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice, US Department of JusticeGoogle Scholar
  57. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang S-M (2012) The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Weisburd D, Groff ER, Yang S-M (2014) Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: the importance of formal and informal social controls. Prev Sci 15(1):31–43. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0351-9
  59. Weisburd D, Eck JE, Braga AA, Telep CW, Cave B, Bowers KJ, Bruinsma GJN, Gill C, Groff ER, Hibdon J, Hinkle JC, Johnson SD, Lawton B, Lum C, Ratcliffe JH, Rengert G, Taniguchi T, Yang S-M (2016) Place matters: criminology for the twenty-first century. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  60. Wicker AW (1987) Behavior settings reconsidered: Temporal stages, resources, internal dynamics, context. In: Stokels D, Altman I (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp 613–653Google Scholar
  61. Wilcox P, Quisenberry N, Cabrera DT, Jones S (2004) Busy places and broken windows? Toward defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. Sociol Quart 45:185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wo JC (2014) Community context of crime: a longitudinal examination of the effects of local institutions on neighborhood crime. Crime Delinq. doi:10.1177/0011128714542501 Google Scholar
  63. Wo JC, Hipp JR, Boessen A (2016). Voluntary organizations and neighborhood crime: a dynamic perspective. Criminology, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12101/abstract

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyUniversity of California - IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations