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.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download to read the full chapter text
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
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.
References
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Anselin, L. (1988). Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Anselin, L. (2004). GeoDa. Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science. Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
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.
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.
Baller, R. D., Anselin, l., & Messner, S. F. (2001). Structural covariates of U.S. county homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology, 39, 561–590.
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.
Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth Violence, Guns, and the Illicit-drug Industry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 10–36.
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).
Blumstein, A., & Rosenfeld, R. (1998). Explaining recent trends in US homicide rates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 1175–1216.
Boggs, S. L. (1965). Urban crime patterns. American Sociological Review, 30, 899–908.
Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1981). Environmental Criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cohen, J., & Tita, G. (1999). Diffusion in homicide: Exploring a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 451–493.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
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.
Decker, S. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 243–264.
Doreian, P. (1980). Linear models with spatially distributed data: Spatial disturbances or spatial effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 9, 29–60.
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.
Elffers, H. (2003). Analyzing neighbourhood influence in criminology. Journal of the Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, 57(3), 347–367.
Gartner, R. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55, 92–106.
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.
Gould, R. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1870. American Sociological Review, 56, 716–729.
Greenbaum, R. T. (2002). A Spatial study of teachers’ salaries in pennsylvania school districts. Journal of Labor Research, 23, 69–86.
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.
Groff, E., & McEwen, T. (2006). Exploring the Spatial Configuration of Places Related to Homicide Events. Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Hesseling, R. B. P. (1992). Using data on offender mobility in ecological research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 95–112.
Kim, Y. (2007). Using spatial analysis for monitoring fraud in a public delivery program. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 287–301.
Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence and Control. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klinger, D., & Bridges, G. S. (1997). Measurement errors in call-for-service as an indicator of crime. Criminology, 35, 529–541.
Krivo, L. J., & Peterson, R. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619–50.
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.
Leenders, R. Th. A. J. (2002). Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix. Social Networks, 24, 21–47.
Loftin, C. (1986). Assaultive violence as a contagious process. Bulletin of New York Academy of Medicine, 62, 550–555.
Manski, C. (1994). Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Messner, S. F., & Tardiff, K. (1986). The social ecology of urban homicide: An application of the ‘Routine Activities’ approach. Criminology, 22, 241–267.
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.
Moore, J. (1991). Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Press.
Morenoff, J. D., & Sampson, R. J. (1997). Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990. Social Forces, 76, 31–64.
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517–560.
Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semi-parametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods, 2, 139–157.
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.
Parker, R. N., & Smith, M. D. (1979). Deterrence, poverty and type of homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 614–624
Rand, A. (1986). Mobility triangles. In: R. Figlio, S. Hakim & G.F. Rengert (Eds.), Metropolitan Crime Patterns. New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Rengert, G. F. (1996). The Geography of Illegal Drugs. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Robertson, J. B., & Rengert, G. F. (2006). Illegal drug markets: The geographic perspective and crime propensity. Western Criminology Review, 7(1), 2–32.
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.
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.
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.
Strang, D., & Tuma, N. B. (1993). Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology, 3, 614–639.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tita, G., Cohen, J., & Engberg, J. (2005). An ecological study of the location of gang ‘Set Space’. Social Problems, 52, 272–299.
Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240.
Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: the Jersey City DMA experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 711–36.
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.
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.
Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns in Criminal Violence. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09688-9_7
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-0973-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-09688-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)