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?
- 475 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsStreet segments Structural characteristics Criminal opportunities Social disorganization theory Level of aggregation Unit of analysis
- Anselin L, Cohen J, Cook D, Gorr W, Tita G (2000) Spatial analyses of crime. Crime Justice 4(2):213–262Google Scholar
- Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1993) Environment, routine and situation: toward a pattern theory of crime. Adv Criminol Theo 5:259–294Google Scholar
- Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Eck J, Weisburd D (eds) (1995) Crime and place: crime prevention studies (Vol. 4). Willow Tree Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Shaw CR, McKay HD (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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