Smallest is Better? The Spatial Distribution of Arson and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem

ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to explore how the zonation and scale problems of the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) impact on the proportion of variance associated with surrounding areas in relation to micro-place levels of arson. MAUP is related to how geographical areas are constructed, with zonation related to how boundaries are drawn, and scale related to the size of areas.MethodsArson point data from 2007 to 2011 are analyzed by means of hierarchical linear modeling in order to compute intra-class correlations (ICCs), the share of variance associated with the higher order geographical units, for geographical units of three different sizes and with three degrees of randomness. Real, administrative, geographical units of two sizes, with mean size of 1.2 and 0.4 square kilometers respectively, are compared both to semi-random and fully-random artificial geographical units of the same size, and to smaller types of units of 0.17 square kilometer size.ResultsThe analysis shows that there is little difference between large and medium-sized geographical units, but there is a significant increase in the ICC at the smallest geographical scale. To understand the geography of arson this suggests that the smallest types of units are of the greatest importance. As regards the problem of zonation, the results show that more randomness of boundary placement is associated with lower ICCs.ConclusionA key implication of these findings is that community preventive efforts may best be targeted at very small communities such as street blocks rather than larger neighborhoods.

[1]  M. Kendall,et al.  An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. , 1911 .

[2]  H. D. McKay,et al.  Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas , 1943 .

[3]  Stan Openshaw,et al.  A geographical solution to scale and aggregation problems in region-building, partitioning and spatial modelling , 1977 .

[4]  Ruth Rosner Kornhauser,et al.  Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models , 1978 .

[5]  Lawrence E. Cohen,et al.  Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach , 1979 .

[6]  Robert J. Bursik,et al.  SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION AND THEORIES OF CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS* , 1988 .

[7]  R. Sampson,et al.  Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Anthony S. Bryk,et al.  Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods , 1992 .

[9]  Peter A. Rogerson,et al.  GIS and Spatial Analytical Problems , 1993, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Marcus Felson,et al.  Crime and Everyday Life: Insights and Implications for Society , 1994 .

[11]  P. Brantingham,et al.  Criminality of place , 1995 .

[12]  R. Bosker.  Boekbespreking van "A.S. Bryk & S.W. Raudenbusch - Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods" : Sage Publications, Newbury Parki, London/New Delhi 1992 , 1995 .

[13]  S. Raudenbush,et al.  Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. , 1997, Science.

[14]  Ralph B. Taylor.  Social Order and Disorder of Street Blocks and Neighborhoods: Ecology, Microecology, and the Systemic Model of Social Disorganization , 1997 .

[15]  Att leka med elden - en bok om barn, eld och brand. , 1998 .

[16]  Robert J. Sampson,et al.  Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[17]  Teresa C. Lagrange,et al.  The Impact of Neighborhoods, Schools, and Malls on the Spatial Distribution of Property Damage , 1999 .

[18]  Roel Bosker,et al.  Multilevel analysis : an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling , 1999 .

[19]  Duane F. Marble,et al.  Some thoughts on the integration of spatial analysis and Geographic Information Systems , 2000, J. Geogr. Syst..

[20]  Rolf Loeber,et al.  DO DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS CAUSE WELL-ADJUSTED CHILDREN TO BECOME ADOLESCENT DELINQUENTS? A STUDY OF MALE JUVENILE SERIOUS OFFENDING, INDIVIDUAL RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT* , 2000 .

[21]  Tomoki Nakaya,et al.  An Information Statistical Approach to the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Incidence Rate Maps , 2000 .

[22]  Marc Ouimet,et al.  Aggregation bias in ecological research: How social disorganization and criminal opportunities shape the spatial distribution of juvenile delinquency in Montreal , 2000 .

[23]  C. Coulton,et al.  Mapping Residents' Perceptions of Neighborhood Boundaries: A Methodological Note , 2001, American journal of community psychology.

[24]  Lawrence W. Sherman,et al.  Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control , 2002 .

[25]  John Wooldredge,et al.  EXAMINING THE (IR)RELEVANCE OF AGGREGATION BIAS FOR MULTILEVEL STUDIES OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND CRIME WITH AN EXAMPLE COMPARING CENSUS TRACTS TO OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN CINCINNATI , 2002 .

[26]  R. Sampson,et al.  ASSESSING "NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS": Social Processes and New Directions in Research , 2002 .

[27]  R. Lupton.  CASE paper 73: Neighbourhood Effects: Can we measure them and does it matter? , 2003 .

[28]  Cora J. M. Maas,et al.  The influence of violations of assumptions on multilevel parameter estimates and their standard errors , 2004, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[29]  S. Raudenbush,et al.  Seeing Disorder: Neighborhood Stigma and the Social Construction of “Broken Windows” , 2004 .

[30]  S. Bushway,et al.  Trajectories of Crime at Places: A Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of Seattle , 2004 .

[31]  Jerry H. Ratcliffe.  Detecting Spatial Movement of Intra-Region Crime Patterns Over Time , 2005 .

[32]  Dan M. Cantillon.  Community Social Organization, Parents, and Peers as Mediators of Perceived Neighborhood Block Characteristics on Delinquent and Prosocial Activities , 2006, American journal of community psychology.

[33]  D. Freedman,et al.  On The So-Called “Huber Sandwich Estimator” and “Robust Standard Errors” , 2006 .

[34]  Tony H. Grubesic,et al.  On The Application of Fuzzy Clustering for Crime Hot Spot Detection , 2006 .

[35]  John E. Eck,et al.  DOES CRIME JUST MOVE AROUND THE CORNER? A CONTROLLED STUDY OF SPATIAL DISPLACEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF CRIME CONTROL BENEFITS* , 2006 .

[36]  Peter K. B. St. Jean,et al.  Pockets of Crime: Broken Windows, Collective Efficacy, and the Criminal Point of View , 2007 .

[37]  John R. Hipp.  Block, Tract, and Levels of Aggregation: Neighborhood Structure and Crime and Disorder as a Case in Point , 2007 .

[38]  D. Kruger.  Verifying the operational definition of neighborhood for the psychosocial impact of structural deterioration , 2008 .

[39]  R. Collins.  Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory , 2008 .

[40]  Elizabeth R. Groff,et al.  Where the Action Is at Places: Examining Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Juvenile Crime at Places Using Trajectory Analysis and GIS , 2009 .

[41]  Elizabeth R. Groff,et al.  Hot Spots of Juvenile Crime: A Longitudinal Study of Arrest Incidents at Street Segments in Seattle, Washington , 2009 .

[42]  George F. Rengert,et al.  Geographical Units of Analysis and the Analysis of Crime , 2009 .

[43]  D. Oberwittler,et al.  Why Small Is Better: Advancing the Study of the Role of Behavioral Contexts in Crime Causation , 2009 .

[44]  Patricia L. Brantingham,et al.  Crime Analysis at Multiple Scales of Aggregation: A Topological Approach , 2009 .

[45]  Ralph B. Taylor.  Communities, Crime, and Reactions to Crime Multilevel Models: Accomplishments and Meta-Challenges , 2010 .

[46]  Det är inte stenarna som gör ont : Röster från Herrgården, Rosengård - om konflikter och erkännande , 2010 .

[47]  George E. Tita,et al.  Making Space for Theory: The Challenges of Theorizing Space and Place for Spatial Analysis in Criminology , 2010 .

[48]  John R. Hipp.  Micro-structure in micro-neighborhoods: A new social distance measure, and its effect on individual and aggregated perceptions of crime and disorder , 2010, Soc. Networks.

[49]  Wim Bernasco,et al.  Modeling Micro-Level Crime Location Choice: Application of the Discrete Choice Framework to Crime at Places , 2010 .

[50]  Marcus Felson,et al.  Linking Criminal Choices, Routine Activities, Informal Control, and Criminal Outcomes (1986) , 2010 .

[51]  Robin Flowerdew,et al.  How serious is the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem for analysis of English census data? , 2011, Population trends.

[52]  M. Kwan.  The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem , 2012 .

[53]  P. Wikström,et al.  Breaking Rules: The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People's Urban Crime , 2012 .

[54]  Elizabeth R. Groff,et al.  The Criminology of Place: Street Segments and Our Understanding of the Crime Problem , 2012 .

[55]  Robert J. Sampson,et al.  Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect , 2012 .

[56]  Elizabeth R. Groff,et al.  Understanding and Controlling Hot Spots of Crime: The Importance of Formal and Informal Social Controls , 2014, Prevention Science.

[57]  K. Mcdonald.  They can’t do nothin’ to us today , 2012 .

[58]  Martin A. Andresen,et al.  Spatial heterogeneity in crime analysis , 2013, CrimRxiv.

[59]  W. Bernasco,et al.  Social Disorganization, Social Capital, Collective Efficacy and the Spatial Distribution of Crime and Offenders An Empirical Test of Six Neighbourhood Models for a Dutch City , 2013 .

[60]  J. Jackson,et al.  COLLECTIVE EFFICACY, DEPRIVATION AND VIOLENCE IN LONDON , 2013 .

[61]  Stephen A Matthews,et al.  Spatial Polygamy and Contextual Exposures (SPACEs) , 2013, The American behavioral scientist.

[62]  Eva Andersson,et al.  Segregation and Urban Unrest in Sweden , 2013 .

[63]  D. Henry,et al.  The Geography of Citizen Crime Reporting , 2013, American journal of community psychology.

[64]  Shane D. Johnson,et al.  TARGET CHOICE DURING EXTREME EVENTS: A DISCRETE SPATIAL CHOICE MODEL OF THE 2011 LONDON RIOTS , 2013 .

[65]  STADENS BRÄNDER Del 1 - Anlagda bränder och Malmös sociala geografi. , 2013 .

[66]  Adam Boessen,et al.  EGOHOODS AS WAVES WASHING ACROSS THE CITY: A NEW MEASURE OF “NEIGHBORHOODS” , 2013 .

[67]  Elizabeth R. Groff,et al.  The Importance of Both Opportunity and Social Disorganization Theory in a Future Research Agenda to Advance Criminological Theory and Crime Prevention at Places , 2014 .

[68]  Scott Orford,et al.  The Relationship between Self-reported Definitions of Urban Neighbourhood and Respondent Characteristics: A Study of Cardiff, UK , 2014 .

[69]  R. Clarke,et al.  Explaining High-Risk Concentrations of Crime in the City , 2014 .

[70]  Challenges facing the elderly care industry in Hong Kong: the shortage of frontline workers , 2014, SpringerPlus.

[71]  Jiming Jiang,et al.  Reliability of environmental sampling culture results using the negative binomial intraclass correlation coefficient , 2014, SpringerPlus.

[72]  Janet Willars,et al.  The effect of vaginal closure technique on early post-operative pain following vaginal prolapse surgery: a feasibility pilot study and qualitative assessment , 2014, SpringerPlus.

[73]  W. Bernasco,et al.  Units of Analysis in Geographic Criminology: Historical Development, Critical Issues and Open Questions , 2015 .

[74]  John Eck,et al.  Crime Places in Crime Theory , 2015 .

[75]  Cody W. Telep,et al.  The Importance of Place in Policing: Empirical Evidence and Policy Recommendations , 2015 .

[76]  Adam Boessen,et al.  CLOSE‐UPS AND THE SCALE OF ECOLOGY: LAND USES AND THE GEOGRAPHY OF SOCIAL CONTEXT AND CRIME , 2015 .

[77]  Wouter Steenbeek,et al.  Where the Action is in Crime? An Examination of Variability of Crime Across Different Spatial Units in The Hague, 2001–2009 , 2016 .