Advertisement

Crime, Neighborhoods, and Units of Analysis: Putting Space in Its Place

  • George E. Tita
  • Robert T. Greenbaum

Abstract

Research has long established that crime is not randomly distributed, and spatial regression models of crime have clearly demonstrated that crime patterns cannot be explained merely by the socio-economic characteristics of a particular place. These findings are a reminder that “space matters” and that neighborhoods are not analytically independent units. Modeling the clustering of crime through spatial regression requires two important decisions. First, one must choose a unit of analysis that is consistent with the social processes believed to be driving the observed patterns. Second, one must consider the relationships among these units such that the model captures the influence the activities in other areas have on outcomes in the neighborhood. Within criminology, this second feature has been given insufficient consideration. Instead, the connectedness of spatial units has been taken as given and modeled solely through adjacency or a distance decay function. This chapter critiques such inductive approaches used to model and explain the spatial distribution of crime. Drawing upon the modeling of network autocorrelation within the social influence literature, we describe a deductive approach wherein specific social processes are posited, measured and modeled a priori. An empirical example using gang violence demonstrates this deductive approach and we find that the spatial distribution of violence is influenced by neighbors defined by the socio-spatial dimensions of gang rivalries rather than simply by geographically contiguous neighbors. We emphasize that a complete discussion of the appropriate unit of analysis must also consider the spatial dimensions of the social phenomena thought to be responsible for the spatial patterning.

Keywords

Social Process Block Group Drug Market Gang Member Census Block Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  2. Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Anselin, L. (2004). GeoDa. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science. Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  4. Anselin, L., Bera, A. K., Florax, R., & Yoon, M. J. (1996). Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26, 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babcock, L., Engberg, J., & Greenbaum, R. (2005). Wage spillovers in public sector contract negotiations: The importance of social comparisons. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 35, 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baller, R. D., Anselin, l., & Messner, S. F. (2001). Structural covariates of U.S. county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology, 39, 561–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology, 36, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth Violence, Guns, and the Illicit-drug Industry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 10–36.Google Scholar
  9. Blumstein, A., & Cork, D. (1996). Linking gun availability to youth gun violence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 5–24 (special issue Kids, Guns, and Public Policy).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumstein, A., & Rosenfeld, R. (1998). Explaining recent trends in US homicide rates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 1175–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boggs, S. L. (1965). Urban crime patterns. American Sociological Review, 30, 899–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Caulkins, J. P., Larson, R. C., & Rich, T. F. (1993). Geography’s impact on the success of focused local drug enforcement operations. Socio-Economic Planning Science, 27, 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Case, A. C., Rosen, H. S., & Hines Jr. J. R. (1993). Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence: Evidence from the states. Journal of Public Economics, 52, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cliff, A. D., Hagget, P., Ord, J. K., & Versey, G. R. (1981). Spatial Diffusion: An Historical Geography of Epidemics in an Island Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, J., Cork, D., Engberg, J., & Tita, G. (1998). The role of drug markets and gangs in local homicide rates. Homicide Studies, 2, 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, J., & Tita, G. (1999). Diffusion in homicide: Exploring a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 451–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.Google Scholar
  19. Cork, D. (1999). Examining space-time interaction in city-level homicide data: Crack markets and the diffusion of guns among youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5, 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Decker, S. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doreian, P. (1980). Linear models with spatially distributed data: Spatial disturbances or spatial effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 9, 29–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eck, J. E. (1995). A general model of the geography of illicit retail marketplaces. In: J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and Place (pp. 67–93). aMonsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  23. Elffers, H. (2003). Analyzing neighbourhood influence in criminology. Journal of the Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, 57(3), 347–367.Google Scholar
  24. Gartner, R. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55, 92–106.Google Scholar
  25. Gordon, R., Lahey, B., Kawai, E., Loeber, R., Stouthhamer-Loeber, M., Farrington, D. (2004). Antisocial behavior and youth gang membership: Selection and socialization. Criminology, 42, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gould, R. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1870. American Sociological Review, 56, 716–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greenbaum, R. T. (2002). A Spatial study of teachers’ salaries in pennsylvania school districts. Journal of Labor Research, 23, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffiths, E., & Chavez, J. M. (2004). Communities, street guns and homicide trajectories in Chicago, 1980–1995: Merging methods for examining homicide trends across space and time. Criminology, 42, 941–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Groff, E., & McEwen, T. (2006). Exploring the Spatial Configuration of Places Related to Homicide Events. Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  30. Hesseling, R. B. P. (1992). Using data on offender mobility in ecological research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, Y. (2007). Using spatial analysis for monitoring fraud in a public delivery program. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence and Control. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Klinger, D., & Bridges, G. S. (1997). Measurement errors in call-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology, 35, 529–541.Google Scholar
  34. Krivo, L. J., & Peterson, R. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Land, K. C., & Deane, G. (1992). On the large-sample estimation of regression models with spatial effects terms: A two-stage least squares approach. Sociological Methodology, 22, 221–248.Google Scholar
  36. Leenders, R. Th. A. J. (2002). Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix. Social Networks, 24, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loftin, C. (1986). Assaultive violence as a contagious process. Bulletin of New York Academy of Medicine, 62, 550–555.Google Scholar
  38. Manski, C. (1994). Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Marsden, P. V., & Friedkin, N. E. (1994). Network studies of social influence. In: S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in Social Network Analysis (pp. 3–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Mears, D. P., & Bhati, A. S. (2006). No community is an island: The effects of resource deprivation on urban violence in spatially and socially proximate communities. Criminology, 44, 509–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Messner, S., & Anselin, L. (2004). Spatial analysis of homicide with areal data. In: M. F. Goodchild & D. G. Janelle (Eds.), Spatially Integrated Social Science (pp. 127–144). New York: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Messner, S. F., & Tardiff, K. (1986). The social ecology of urban homicide: An application of the ‘Routine Activities’ approach. Criminology, 22, 241–267.Google Scholar
  43. Mikelbank, K. M., & Sabol, W. J. (2005). The use of GIS and spatial analysis in responding to community concerns about local drug markets. Eighth Annual Crime Mapping Research Conference, Savannah, Georgia.Google Scholar
  44. Moore, J. (1991). Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Press.Google Scholar
  45. Morenoff, J. D., & Sampson, R. J. (1997). Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990. Social Forces, 76, 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semi-parametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods, 2, 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oberwittler, D. & Wikström P. (2009). “Why Small Is Better: Advancing the Study of the Role of Behavioral Contexts in Crime Causation.” In: D.Weisburd, W. Bernasco & G. J. N. Bruinsma (Eds.), Putting Crime in its Place: Units of Analysis in Spatial Crime Research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Parker, R. N., & Smith, M. D. (1979). Deterrence, poverty and type of homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 614–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rand, A. (1986). Mobility triangles. In: R. Figlio, S. Hakim & G.F. Rengert (Eds.), Metropolitan Crime Patterns. New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rengert, G. F. (1996). The Geography of Illegal Drugs. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  52. Robertson, J. B., & Rengert, G. F. (2006). Illegal drug markets: The geographic perspective and crime propensity. Western Criminology Review, 7(1), 2–32.Google Scholar
  53. Rosenfeld, R., Bray, T., & Egley, A. (1999). Facilitating violence: A comparison of gang-motivated, gang-affiliated, and non-gang youth homicides. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5, 495–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sampson, R. J. (2004). Networks and neighbourhoods: The implications of connectivity for thinking about crime in the modern city. In: H. McCarthy, P. Miller & P. Skidmore (Eds.), Network Logic: Who Governs in an Interconnected World? (pp. 157–166). London: Demos.Google Scholar
  55. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing neighborhood effects: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Strang, D., & Tuma, N. B. (1993). Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 3, 614–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tita, G. (2006). Neighborhoods as nodes: Combining social network analysis with spatial analysis to explore the spatial distribution of gang violence. Conference paper for Workshop on Space, Networks, and Social Influence. February 9th – 11th, 2006. University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  59. Tita, G., & Ridgeway, G. (2007). The impact of gang formation on local patterns of crime. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 44(2), 208–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tita, G., & Griffiths, E. (2005). Traveling to violence: The case for a mobility-based spatial typology of homicide. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 42, 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tita, G., & Cohen, J. (2004). Measuring spatial diffusion of shots fired activity across city neighborhoods. In: M. F. Goodchild & D. G. Janelle (Eds.), Spatially Integrated Social Science (pp. 171–204). New York: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tita, G., Cohen, J., & Engberg, J. (2005). An ecological study of the location of gang ‘Set Space’. Social Problems, 52, 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: the Jersey City DMA experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 711–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilkinson, D., & Fagan, J. (1996). Understanding the role of firearms in violence scripts: The dynamics of gun events among adolescent males. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 55–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Williams, K., & Flewelling, R. L. (1988). The social production of criminal homicide: A comparative study of disaggregated rates in American Cities. American Sociological Review, 54, 421–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Violence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • George E. Tita
    • 1
  • Robert T. Greenbaum
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyUniversity of California–IrvineUSA
  2. 2.John Glenn School of Public Affairs and Center for Urban and Regional AnalysisThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations