Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-09688-9_7
  • Chapter length: 26 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-0-387-09688-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • 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 

  • Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anselin, L. (2004). GeoDa. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science. Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baller, R. D., Anselin, l., & Messner, S. F. (2001). Structural covariates of U.S. county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology, 39, 561–590.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth Violence, Guns, and the Illicit-drug Industry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 10–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, A., & Rosenfeld, R. (1998). Explaining recent trends in US homicide rates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 1175–1216.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boggs, S. L. (1965). Urban crime patterns. American Sociological Review, 30, 899–908.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Tita, G. (1999). Diffusion in homicide: Exploring a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 451–493.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, S. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 243–264.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Doreian, P. (1980). Linear models with spatially distributed data: Spatial disturbances or spatial effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 9, 29–60.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Elffers, H. (2003). Analyzing neighbourhood influence in criminology. Journal of the Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, 57(3), 347–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner, R. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55, 92–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1870. American Sociological Review, 56, 716–729.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Greenbaum, R. T. (2002). A Spatial study of teachers’ salaries in pennsylvania school districts. Journal of Labor Research, 23, 69–86.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hesseling, R. B. P. (1992). Using data on offender mobility in ecological research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 95–112.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. (2007). Using spatial analysis for monitoring fraud in a public delivery program. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 287–301.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence and Control. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, D., & Bridges, G. S. (1997). Measurement errors in call-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology, 35, 529–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krivo, L. J., & Peterson, R. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619–50.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Leenders, R. Th. A. J. (2002). Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix. Social Networks, 24, 21–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Loftin, C. (1986). Assaultive violence as a contagious process. Bulletin of New York Academy of Medicine, 62, 550–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C. (1994). Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Moore, J. (1991). Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morenoff, J. D., & Sampson, R. J. (1997). Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990. Social Forces, 76, 31–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517–560.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semi-parametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods, 2, 139–157.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Parker, R. N., & Smith, M. D. (1979). Deterrence, poverty and type of homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 614–624

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rand, A. (1986). Mobility triangles. In: R. Figlio, S. Hakim & G.F. Rengert (Eds.), Metropolitan Crime Patterns. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengert, G. F. (1996). The Geography of Illegal Drugs. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, D., & Tuma, N. B. (1993). Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 3, 614–639.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tita, G., Cohen, J., & Engberg, J. (2005). An ecological study of the location of gang ‘Set Space’. Social Problems, 52, 272–299.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: the Jersey City DMA experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 711–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Violence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tita, G.E., Greenbaum, R.T. (2009). Crime, Neighborhoods, and Units of Analysis: Putting Space in Its Place. In: Weisburd, D., Bernasco, W., Bruinsma, G.J. (eds) Putting Crime in its Place. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09688-9_7

Download citation