Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facilities, opportunity, and crime: An exploratory analysis of places in two urban neighborhoods

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

I’ve been too many places. I’m like the bad penny.

(Jack Nicholson, actor)

Abstract

Crime prevention strategists have long been examining the impact of land use on crime, particularly the effects of non-residential land use in the form of facilities. Places like bars, motels, schools, convenience stores, and check-cashing centers have been examined in relation to crime to the point that it seems we now have a “criminology of the unpopular” (Wilcox and Eck in Criminol Public Policy 10(2):473–482, 2011), whereby places of a particular type are assumed to inherently offer crime opportunity. However, other theoretical and empirical work suggests that facility type may not matter and that specific characteristics and contexts associated with crime opportunity at places should be measured as opposed to assuming that broad categories of land uses typically generate crime (e.g., Brantingham and Brantingham in Stud Crime Crime Prev 8(1):7–26, 1999; Eck et al. in Crime Prev Stud 21:225, 2007; Hart and Miethe in Secur J 27(2):180–193, 2014; Smith et al. in Criminology 38(2):489–524, 2000; Wilcox and Eck in Criminol Public Policy 10(2):473–482, 2011). As an exploratory test of this latter idea, the present study uses observational data collected repeatedly at a small number of places over a one-year period—including land-use types that are not typically associated with crime (i.e., gardens)—in order to examine whether land-use parcels of the same type but with differing criminal opportunities have differing levels of crime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hot spots are defined as “small places in which the occurrence of crime is so frequent that it is highly predictable, at least over a one year period” (Sherman 1995, p. 36).

  2. Potentially criminogenic places were ATMs and banks, alcohol stores, bars, check-cashing stores, neighborhood corner stores, drug treatment centers, high schools, neighborhood parks, subway stops, fast-food restaurants, pawn shops, and public housing communities.

  3. UCR data were chosen due to the difficulties in alternative crime measures. Specifically, calls for service tend to be a reflection of people’s willingness to call police rather than level of crime per se.

  4. Due to the small sample sizes for each site type, all sites were combined (N = 41) to assess the bivariate correlations of crime rate with interval-level measures of criminal opportunity.

References

  • Bernasco, W., and R. Block. 2009. Where offenders choose to attack: A discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology 47 (1): 93–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W., and R. Block. 2011. Robberies in Chicago: A block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48 (1): 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevis, C., and J. Nutter. 1977 Changing street layouts to reduce residential burglary. Paper presented at American Society of Criminology annual meeting.

  • Block, R.L., and C.R. Block. 1995. Space, place and crime: Hot spot areas and hot places of liquor-related crime. Crime and Place 4 (2): 145–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga, A.A., D.M. Hureau, and A.V. Papachristos. 2011. The relevance of micro places to citywide robbery trends: A longitudinal analysis of robbery incidents at street corners and block faces in Boston. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48 (1): 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1993. Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13 (1): 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P., and P. Brantingham. 1995. Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 3 (3): 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1999. A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 8 (1): 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curman, A.S., M.A. Andresen, and P.J. Brantingham. 2015. Crime and place: A longitudinal examination of street segment patterns in Vancouver, BC. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31 (1): 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deryol, R., P. Wilcox, M. Logan, and J. Wooldredge. 2016a. Crime places in context: An illustration of the multilevel nature of hotspot development. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 32:305–325 (Erratum, pp. 327–328).

  • Deryol, R., J. Wooldredge, P. Wilcox, and M. Logan. 2016b. Pondering products of place-level distances: A reply to Reinhart. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10940-016-9300-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, P.G., and C.E. Kimble. 1997. Community organizing, environmental change, and neighborhood crime. Crime and Delinquency 43: 493–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duru, H. 2010. Crime on Turkish streetblocks: An examination of the effects of high-schools, on-premise alcohol outlets, and coffeehouses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

  • Eck, J.E., R.V. Clarke, and R.T. Guerette. 2007. Risky facilities: Crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. Crime Prevention Studies 21: 225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck, J.E., T. Madensen, T. Payne, P. Wilcox, B.S. Fisher, and H. Scherer. 2010. Situational crime prevention at specific locations in community context: Place and neighborhood effects. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. NCJRS 229364.

  • Felson, M. 2006. Crime and nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, S., W. Rohe, and J. Williams. 1982. Safety in urban neighborhoods: A comparison of physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime neighborhoods. Population and Environment 5: 141–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, E.R., D. Weisburd, and S. Yang. 2010. Is it important to examine crime trends at a local “micro” level?: A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26 (1): 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, C.P., and J.H. Ratcliffe. 2015. Testing for temporally differentiated relationships among potentially criminogenic places and census block street robbery counts. Criminology 53: 457–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, T.C., and T.D. Miethe. 2014. Street robbery and public bus stops: A case study of activity nodes and situational risk. Security Journal 27 (2): 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, B., and J. Hanson. 1984. The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kubrin, C.E., G.D. Squires, S.M. Graves, and G.C. Ousey. 2011. Does fringe banking exacerbate neighborhood crime rates? Criminology and Public Policy 10 (2): 437–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, E., B. Koons, and R.B. Taylor. 1998. Land use, physical deterioration, resident-based control, and calls for service on urban streetblocks. Justice Quarterly 15: 121–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, D. 2009. Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 11 (1): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, K.J., and W.R. Smith. 2002. Socioecological models of automotive theft: Integrating routine activity and social disorganization approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39 (3): 304–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roncek, D.W., and D. Faggiani. 1985. High schools and crime: A replication. Sociological Quarterly 26 (4): 491–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roncek, D.W., and A. LoBosco. 1983. The effects of high schools on crime in their neighborhoods. Social Science Quarterly 64 (3): 598–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roncek, D.W., and P.A. Maier. 1991. Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: Linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots”. Criminology 29 (4): 725–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R.J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, C.R., and H.D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L.W. 1995. Hot spots of crime and criminal careers of places. Crime and Place 4: 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L.W., P.R. Gartin, and M.E. Buerger. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27 (1): 27–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.R., S.G. Frazee, and E.L. Davison. 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): 489–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SooHyun, O., and Y. Lee. 2016. Crime and land use in Pittsburgh: A micro-size grid-cell analysis of the influence of land-uses on area crime. Crime Prevention and Community Safety 18 (3): 204–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuckey, T.D., and J.R. Ottensmann. 2009. Land use and violent crime. Criminology 47 (4): 1223–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R.B., and A. Harrell. 1996. Physical environment and crime. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. NCJ 157311.

  • Weisburd, D., S. Bushway, C. Lum, and S. Yang. 2004. Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42 (2): 283–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D.L., E.R. Groff, and S. Yang. 2012. The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White, G.F. 1990. Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly 7: 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, P., and J.E. Eck. 2011. Criminology of the unpopular. Criminology and Public Policy 10 (2): 473–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, P., N. Quisenberry, D.T. Cabrera, and S. Jones. 2004. Busy places and broken windows? Toward defining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. The Sociological Quarterly 45 (2): 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Metropolitan State University, 9110 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Park, MN, 55445, USA

    Lesli Blair

  2. School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 660NA Teacher-Dyer Hall, Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

    Pamela Wilcox

  3. School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 650 Teacher-Dyer Hall, Clifton Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

    John Eck

Authors
  1. Lesli Blair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela Wilcox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Eck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lesli Blair.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blair, L., Wilcox, P. & Eck, J. Facilities, opportunity, and crime: An exploratory analysis of places in two urban neighborhoods. Crime Prev Community Saf 19, 61–81 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-016-0011-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41300-016-0011-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation