Skip to main content

Measuring a Place’s Exposure to Facilities Using Geoprocessing Models: An Illustration Using Drinking Places and Crime

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Crime Modeling and Mapping Using Geospatial Technologies

Part of the book series: Geotechnologies and the Environment ((GEOTECH,volume 8))

Abstract

The prominent role of facilities in influencing ‘why crime happens where it does’ has been widely recognized and vigorously researched. Criminological theories which focus on opportunity such as routine activity theory and crime pattern theory have provided the basis for such inquiries. Some of these investigations have targeted the role of facilities in fueling higher crime levels at places. They have usually developed facility-focused measures that quantify each facility’s influence based on the crime experienced by the places located near it. Measures are calculated only at the locations with facilities present. However, improvements in data sources and software have allowed researchers to examine the population of small units of geography rather than focusing on only those with a facility present. Thus it is now possible to quantify the cumulative effect of nearby facilities on the crime rates of geographies of such street blocks and addresses. This chapter begins by discussing the traditional methods for exploring the relationship between facilities and crime. Next, the theoretical case for more sophisticated distance and activity-level based measures is made. The critical role of geoprocessing models in automating complex analysis processes is explained and a model developed to create three different exposure measures. Data describing the locations of drinking places and street block level crime are used to illustrate how measures produced by the model can be used to explore the relationships between exposure to facilities and an outcome such as crime. The output measures from the model are evaluated using descriptive statistics and then used as independent variables in an ordinary least squares regression. Local variation in the measures is examined using a bivariate LISA to highlight areas of negative and positive spatial autocorrelation between exposure to bars and crime. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings and probable next steps.

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

Access this chapter

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

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kurtz et al. (1998) examined the percent of the street block that was retail storefronts but did not consider adjacent areas.

  2. 2.

    Earlier work by Groff and colleagues has suggested that street distance buffers offer a more parsimonious representation of the spatial interaction occurring at specific distances than do Euclidean buffers (Groff 2011; Groff and Thomas 1998). Euclidean buffers often include events/facilities that cannot be reached using available travel routes.

  3. 3.

    Threshold distances are measured from the midpoint of the street segment along the street network in all directions to the threshold distance specified. A street segment is included only if its midpoint falls within the threshold.

  4. 4.

    Drinking places were identified using the NAICS code 7224 which defines them as follows: “This industry comprises establishments known as bars, taverns, nightclubs, or drinking places primarily engaged in preparing and serving alcoholic beverages for immediate consumption. These establishments may also provide limited food services.” U.S. Census Bureau (2010) NAICS 7224: Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages) Retrieved 2/11/2010, from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/def/7224.HTM. InfoUSA provided the physical locations of the drinking places as well as their annual sales in thousands of dollars.

  5. 5.

    All geocoding was done in ArcGIS 9.1 using a geocoding locator service with an alias file of common place names to improve the hit rate. The geocoding locater used the following parameters: spelling sensitivity  =  80, minimum candidate score  =  30, minimum match score  =  85, side offset  =  0, end offset  =  3 percent, and Match if candidates tie  =  no. Manual geocoding was done on unmatched records in ArcGIS 9.1 and then in ArcView 3.2 using the ‘MatchAddressToPoint’ tool (which allowed the operator to click on the map to indicate where an address was located) to improve the overall match rate. Research has suggested hit rates above 85% are reliable Ratcliffe (2004). Geocoding Crime and a First Estimate of a Minimum Acceptable Hit Rate. International Journal Geographical Information Science, 18(1), 61–72. Our final geocoding percentage for crime incidents was 97.3 %.

  6. 6.

    Intersection crimes are excluded because incident reports at intersections differed dramatically from those at street segments. For example, traffic-related incidents accounted for only 3.77 % of reports at street segments, but for 45.3 % of reports at intersections. After excluding intersections, records that lacked a specific address, and records that could not be geocoded, there were 186,958 incident reports in 2004.

  7. 7.

    Data on crime from the University of Washington campus were not provided to the Seattle Police Department after 2001. Efforts to obtain geocodable data directly from the University of Washington were unsuccessful.

  8. 8.

    To save space only the results from the 800 and 1200 ft threshold are shown. Maps of additional thresholds are available from the author.

References

  • Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association. Geogr Anal 27:93–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselin L (2003) GeoDa 0.9 User’s guide. Spatial analysis laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco W, Block R (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(1):33–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1982) Mobility, notoriety, and crime: a study of crime patterns in urban nodal points. J Environ Syst 11(1):89–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1984) Patterns in crime. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1991a) Introduction to the 1991 reissue: notes on environmental criminology. In: Brantingham P, Brantingham P (eds) Environmental criminology. Waveland Press Inc, Prospect Heights, pp 1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1991b) Notes on the geometry of crime. In: Brantingham P, Brantingham P (eds) Environmental criminology. Waveland Press, Inc, Prospect Heights, pp 27–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham PL, Brantingham PJ (1995) Criminality of place: crime generators and crime attractors. Eur J Crim Policy Res 3(3):5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlstein T, Parkes D, Thrift NJ (1978) Human activity and time geography. Halsted, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke RV, Cornish DB (1985) Modeling offender’s decisions: a framework for research and policy. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 6. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 23–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen LE, Felson M (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev 44:588–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE (1995) A general model of the geography of illicit retail marketplaces. In: Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place. Willow Tree Press, Monsey, pp 67–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Eck JE, Gersh JS, Taylor C (2000) Finding crime hot spots through repeat address mapping. In: Goldsmith V, McGuire P, Mollenkopf GJH, Ross TA (eds) Analyzing crime patterns: frontiers of practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 49–64)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Esri (2012) ArcGIS 10.0 help. Esri, Redlands, California.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fan Y-H (1998) Effective defect detection and classification methodology based on integrated laser scanning inspection and automatic defect classification. Paper presented at the 1998 IEEE/Semi advanced semiconductor manufacturing conference and workshop, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson M (1986) Predicting crime potential at any point on the city map. In: Figlio RM, Hakim S, Rengert GF (eds) Metropolitan crime patterns. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, pp 127–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Felson M (1995) Those who discourage crime. In: Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place. Willow Tree Press, Monsey, pp 53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisbie DW, Fishbine G, Hintz R, Joelson M, Nutter JB (1978) Crime in minneapolis: proposals for prevention. Minnesota Crime Prevention Center, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Groff ER (2011) Exploring ‘Near’: characterizing the spatial extent of drinking place influence on crime. Aust N Z J Criminol 44:156–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, ER, and Thomas D (1998) Characterizing crime ‘Within a distance of’: a comparison of radius vs. street distance. In: ESRI Mid-Atlantic Users Group Meeting. Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Groff ER, Weisburd D, Morris N (2009) Where the action is at places: examining spatio-temporal patterns of juvenile crime at places using trajectory analysis and GIS. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma G (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. Springer, New York, pp 60–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Hägerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science? Pap Reg Sci Assoc 24:7–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hägerstrand T (1973) The domain of human geography. In: Chorley RJ (ed) Directions in geography. Methuen, London, pp 67–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries KD (1990) Geographic factors in policing. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries KD (1999) Mapping crime: principle and practice. U.S. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton FE, Reynolds DR (1971) Action space differentials in cities. In: McConnell H, Yaseen D (eds) Perspectives in geography: models of spatial interaction. Northern Illinois University Press, Dekab, pp 83–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzman MT (1981) The supply of criminals: a geo-economic examination. In: Hakim S, Rengert GF (eds) Crime spillover. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 119–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchens T (2006) Automating software development processes. Developer.* Retrieved from 05 Mar 2012 . http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/automate_software_process.html

  • Loukaitou-Sideris A (1999) Hot spots of bus stop crime: The importance of environmental attributes. J Am Plan Assoc 65(4):395–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madensen TD, Eck JE (2008) Violence in bars: exploring the impact of place manage decision-making. Crime Prev Commun Saf 10:111–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCord ES, Ratcliffe JH (2007) A micro-spatial analysis of the demographic and criminogenic environment of drug markets in Philadelphia. Aust N Z J Criminol 40(1):43–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe TD, McDowall D (1993) Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Force 71:741–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller H (2004) Tobler’s first law and spatial analysis. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94(2):284–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moudry JA (2012) Real benefits of automated processes. Retrieved from 5 March 2012. http://www.nextgenpinews.com/files/Real%20Benefits%20of%20Automated%20Processes.pdf

  • Pred A (1967) Behavior and location: foundations for a geographic and dynamic location theory, part I. Gleerup, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Pred A (1969) Behavior and location: foundations for a geographic and dynamic location theory, part II. Gleerup, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe JH (2011) How near is near? Quantifying the spatial influence of crime attractors and generators. In: Andresen M, Kinney JB (eds) Patterns, prevention, and geometry of crime. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe JH (2012) The spatial extent of criminogenic places on the surrounding environment: a change-point regression of violence around bars. Geogr Anal 44(4):302–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengert GF, Ratcliffe JH, Chakravorty S (2005) Policing illegal drug markets: geographic approaches to crime reduction. Criminal Justice Press, Monsey

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice KJ, Smith WR (2002) Sociological models of automotive theft: integrating routine activity and social disorganization approaches. J Res Crime Delinq 39(3):304–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roncek DW, Bell R (1981) Bars, blocks and crimes. J Environ Syst 11:35–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossmo DK, Rombouts S (2008) Geographic profiling. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis. Willan Publishing, Portland, pp 78–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman LW, Gartin P, Buerger ME (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27(1):27–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor RB (2010) Communities, crime, and reactions to crime multilevel models: accomplishments and meta-challenges. J Quant Criminol 26(4):455–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoma RS (1991) Automated phenylthiocarbamyl amino acid analysis of carboxypeptidase/aminopeptidase digests and acid hydrolysates. J Chromatogr 537:153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler W (1970) A computer model simulation of urban growth in the detroit region. Econ Geogr 46(2):234–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang S-M (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, Bruinsma G, Bernasco W (2009) Units of analysis in geographic criminology: historical development, critical issues and open questions. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma G (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. Springer, New York, pp 3–31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Groff E, Yang S-M (2011) Understanding developmental crime trajectories at places: social disorganization and opportunity perspectives at micro units of geography. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd D, Groff E, Yang S-M (2012) The criminology of place: street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Q 45(2):185–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worboys M, Duckham M (2004) GIS: a computing perspective. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Zipf G (1950) Principle of least effort. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Groff .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendix: Documentation of Geoprocessing Model for Calculating Exposure to Facilities

Appendix: Documentation of Geoprocessing Model for Calculating Exposure to Facilities

A geoprocessing model was used to develop the cumulative measures of exposure to facilities. There are three main inputs to the model: (1) a network data set; (2) a feature class of point locations representing origins; and 3) a feature class of point locations representing destinations. The remainder of the Appendix provides a step-by-step description of the model. A snapshot of the section of the model appears first followed by a description of that step.

figure a

Step 1:

Make an OD Cost Matrix Layer – This tool makes an origin–destination (OD) matrix. The user sets the analysis properties for the matrix. This type of analysis is especially helpful when the goal is to specify the “costs of going from a set of origin locations to a set of destination locations” (Esri help 2011). This is where the user sets the impedance attribute and the threshold distance cutoff. The impedance attribute is the field is used to measure the distance or time between each origin and destination pair.

Output: OD Cost Matrix -

figure b

Step 2:

Add Locations – This tool adds locations which are network analysis objects to the network analysis layer. In this model, the first locations added are the origin locations which consist of the points representing the mid-points of street blocks (which by definition include both sides of the street between two intersections).

figure c

Step 3:

Add Locations – This tool adds locations which are network analysis objects to the network analysis layer. In this model, this second instance of Add Locations tool is adding the destination locations which consist of the points representing the type of facility (here it is drinking places).

Output: OD Cost Matrix (3)

figure d

Step 4:

Solve tool – Uses OD Cost Matrix (3) and the properties identified earlier to measure the distances between origin and destination points.

Output: Network Analyst Layer – exists in virtual memory

figure e

Step 5:

Select Data tool – Selects the Lines data element developed by the Solve tool which exists in the Network Analyst Layer stored in a geodatabase.

Output: Lines data

figure f

Step 6:

Copy Features (2) tool – Copies the features from the input feature class into a new layer in the geodatabase for further manipulation. Resides under work/scratch.gdb.

Output: outputodmatrix

The output matrix looks like this:

figure g

Notice the ‘Name’ field has the origin node number followed by a dash and then the destination node number. In order to work with these, we need to get them into two separate fields. The field to contain the origin data is called ‘UofA’ and the field to contain the destination data is called ‘DP’. The next several steps are to add the fields and then calculate their contents using the contents of the ‘Name’ field.

figure h

Step 7:

Add Field tool – Adds a field to the specified the input feature class (in this case outputodmatrix) in the geodatabase for further manipulation. The feature class resides under work/scratch.gdb/outputmatrix. The field added is called UofA (field type  =  double). The purpose of this field is to hold the five digit unique unit of analysis number.

Output: outputodmatrix (2)

figure i

Step 8:

Add Field (2) tool – Adds a field to the specified the input feature class (in this case outputodmatrix (2)) in the geodatabase for further manipulation. The feature class resides under work/scratch.gdb/outputmatrix. The field added is called DP (field type  =  double). The purpose of this field is to hold the X digit unique unit of analysis number.

Output: outputodmatrix (3)

figure j

Step 9:

Calculate Field tool – Calculates the values in a field according to an expression supplied by the user. In this case, the expression (theValue) is created from a block of Visual Basic (VB) code which calculates the left side of the ‘Name’ equal to the ‘UofA’ field added in Step 7.

theVal

theName  =  [Name]

theLoc  =  Instr(theName,”-”)

theValue  =  Left(theName,theLoc −2)

The first of code creates and sets a variable called ‘theName’ to be equal to the field called ‘[Name]’. The second line of code finds the position number of the dash in the contents of the ‘theName’ field. The third line subtracts 2 from the variable ‘theLoc’ (this was the position of the dash in the string). Output: ­outputodmatrix (4) Output: OD Cost Matrix (2)

figure k

Step 10:

Calculate Field (2) tool – Calculates the values in a field according to an expression supplied by the user. In this case, the expression (‘theValue’) is created from a block of Visual Basic (VB) code which calculates the right side of the ‘Name’ equal to the ‘DP’ field added in Step 8.

theVal

theName  =  [Name]

theSize  =  Len(theName)

theLoc  =  Instr(theName,“-”)

theValue  =  Right(theName,theSize – theLoc)

Similar to the code in Step 9, the purpose of this code is to extract the numbers representing the destination point’s unique id. The first line of code creates and sets a variable called ‘theName’ to be equal to the field called ‘[Name]’. The second line of code creates and sets a variable called ‘theSize’ equal to the total length of ‘theName’ variable. For the first record in the sample below, ‘theSize’  =  4. The third line creates and sets ‘theLoc’ variable to the position of the dash in the string (first line below ‘theLoc’  =  6). The fourth line creates and sets a variable called ‘theValue’ to be the rightmost part of the string in ‘theName’ variable equal to the difference between ‘theSize’ and ‘theLoc’ (same example , 4−6  =  −2). The Expression box tells the computer to set the value of ‘UofA’ equal to ‘theValue’.

Output: Lines (5)

After this step output matrix looks like this:

figure l

Step 11:

Make Feature Layer tool – Creates a feature layer from the lines representing the distances from each origin to each destination. This layer is temporary and will not persist after the session ends.

Output: Output Data Layer consisting of outputodmatrix_Layer

figure m

Step 12:

Add Join tool – Joins a layer or table view to another layer or table view based on a common field. In this case, the join is from the drinking places shape file to the Output Layer using the DP field. This allows the attributes attached to each drinking place to be used in the calculation of a measure.

Output: Lines (6) a composite of outputodmatrix_Layer

figure n

Step 13:

Copy Features tool – Copies the features of the input layer (in this case Lines (6)) to a new layer or feature class. The new feature class is stored in work\scratch.gdb\lines

Output: Lines (7) a composite of outputodmatrix_Layer

figure o

Step 14:

Add Field (3) tool – Adds a field to a table. In the model, this is adding the field ‘i_Exp04’ to hold the exposure values for inverse distance weighted count of drinking places in 2004. A value is calculated for each origin–destination pair within the threshold distance. In this case the influence of the drinking place is reduced from 1 based on the distance away from the origin. The farther the distance, the lower the resulting value attached to the drinking place.

Output: Lines (8) store in … work\scratch.gdb\lines

figure p

Step 15: Calculate Field (3) tool – Calculates the field ‘i_Exp04’ equal to the formula in the Expression box. In the model, the expression is 1- Sqr (( [Total_Length] /5280)) which is the formula for inverse distance weighting (IDW) of each drinking place.

Output: Lines (9) store in … work\scratch.gdb\lines

figure q

Step 16:

Add Field (4) tool – Adds a field to a table. In the model, this is adding the field ‘i_ExpSal04’ to hold the exposure values for inverse distance weighted annual sales a of drinking place in 2004. A value is calculated for each origin–destination pair within the threshold distance.

Output: Lines (10) store in … work\scratch.gdb\lines

figure r

Step 17:

Calculate Field (4) tool – Calculates a value for the field ‘i_ExpSal04’ using the expression: (1- Sqr ( [Total_Length] /5280))* [drinking_places04_num_sales]. This field holds the exposure values for inverse distance weighted annual sales of each drinking place within the threshold distance of each street block. A separate value is calculated for each origin–destination pair within the threshold distance.

Output: Lines (11) store in … work\scratch.gdb\lines

figure s
figure t

Step 18:

Summary Statistics tool – Calculates summary statistics for each field in a table. For each street block (UofA field is used as unique identifier), all the values of the ‘i_Exp04’ and the ‘i_ExpSal04’ are summed. This produces a table with one record for each street block and fields containing the cumulative values for length, ‘i_Exp04’ and ‘i_ExpSal04’.

Output: Lines Sum – a new table that is written out and stored in … work\scratch.gdb\lines_Sum

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Groff, E. (2013). Measuring a Place’s Exposure to Facilities Using Geoprocessing Models: An Illustration Using Drinking Places and Crime. In: Leitner, M. (eds) Crime Modeling and Mapping Using Geospatial Technologies. Geotechnologies and the Environment, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4997-9_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics