Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predictive Mapping of Crime by ProMap: Accuracy, Units of Analysis, and the Environmental Backcloth

  • Chapter
Putting Crime in its Place

Abstract

This chapter concerns the forecasting of crime locations using burglary as an example. An overview of research concerned with when and where burglaries occur is provided, with an initial focus on patterns of risk at the individual household level. Of central importance is evidence that as well as being geographically concentrated (at a range of geographic scales), burglary clusters in space and time more than would be expected if patterns of crime were simply the result of some places being more attractive to offenders than others. One theoretical framework regarding offender spatial decision making is discussed and consideration given to how features of the urban environment which affect the accessibility of places (e.g., road networks or social barriers) might shape patterns of offending. A simple mathematical model informed by the research discussed is then presented and tested as to its accuracy in the prediction of burglary locations. The model is tested against chance expectation and popular methods of crime hot-spotting extant and found to outperform both. Consideration of the importance of different units of analysis is a recurrent theme throughout the chapter, whether this concerns the intended policy purpose of crime forecasts made, the spatial resolution of different types of data analyzed, or the attention given to the dimension of time – a unit of analysis often overlooked in this type of work. The chapter concludes with a discussion of means of developing the approach described, combining it with others, and using it, inter alia, to optimize police patrol routes.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Armitage, R. (2007). Sustainability versus safety: Confusion, conflict and contradiction in designing out crime. In: G. Farrell, K. J. Bowers, S. D. Johnson & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for Crime Prevention: Essays in Honour of Ken Pease. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, J., Brown, I., Senior, B., & Pease, K. (1998). Repeat victimisation: Offender accounts. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention, 3(4), 269–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, T. C., & Gatrell, A. C. (1995). Interactive spatial data analysis. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. In: R. V. G. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 2, Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1981) Environmental criminology. Rev. ed. 1991 Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brantingham P. J. (1978). A Theoretical model of crime site selection. In: M. D. Krohn & R. L. Ackers (Eds.), Crime, Law and Sanctions: Theoretical Perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco W. (2008). Them Again? Same-offender Involvement in Repeat and Near Repeat Burglaries. European Journal of Criminology, 5(4), forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W., & Luykx, F. (2003). Effects of attractiveness, opportunity and accessibility to burglars on residential burglary rates of urban neighbourhoods. Criminology, 41, 981–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? British Journal of Criminology, 45, 295–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on Burglary. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besag, J., & Diggle, P. J. (1977). Simple monte carlo tests for spatial pattern. Applied Statistics, 26, 327–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K. J., & Johnson, S. D. (2005). Domestic burglary repeats and space-time clusters: The dimensions of risk. European Journal of Criminology, 2(1), 67–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S., & Pease, K. (2004). Prospective hotspotting: The future of crime mapping? British Journal of Criminology, 44(5), 641–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S., & Pease, K. (2005). Victimisation and re-victimisation risk, housing type and area: A study of interactions. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 7, 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. J. B. (1991). Exploring Geodemographics.’ In: I. Masser & M. Blakemore (Eds.),Geographic Information Management: Methodology and Applications, London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries, Criminology 44(2), 431–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D. (1994). The procedural analysis of offending and its relevance for situational crime prevention. In: R. Clarke (Ed.), Crime Prevention Studies, (Vol. 3, pp. 151–196). Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, E. W. (1959). A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Mathematik, 1, 269–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, U. (1995). Straight from the Horse’s Mouth. Forensic Update, 43, 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everson S. P., & Pease K. (2001). Crime against the same person and place: detection opportunity and offender targeting. In: G. Farrell & K.Pease (Eds.), Repeat Victimisation. Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everson, S. (2003). Repeat victimisation and prolific offending: Chance or choice? International Journal of Police Science and Management, 5, 180–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G. (2005). Progress and prospects in the prevention of repeat victimization. In: N. Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime Prevention and Community Safety. Cullompton, UK: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groff, E. R., & LaVigne, N. G. (2001). Mapping an opportunity surface of residential burglary. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 257–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillier, B. (2004). Can streets be made safe? Urban Design International, 9, 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakim, S., Rengert, G. F., & Schachmurove, Y. (2001). Target search of burglars: A revised economic model. Papers in Regional Science, 80, 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., Bowers, K., & Hirschfield, A. (1997). New insights into the spatial and temporal distribution of repeat victimisation. British Journal of Criminology, 37(2), 224–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., Bernasco, W., Bowers, K. J., Elffers, H., Ratcliffe, J., Rengert, G., & Townsley, M. T. (2007). Near repeats: A cross national assessment of residential burglary. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(3), 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004a). The burglary as a clue to the future: the beginnings of prospective hot-spotting. European Journal of Criminology, 1(2), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. D., & Bowers, K. J. (2004b). The stability of space-time clusters of burglary. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, G. (1964). Epidemiology of childhood leukaemia in northumberland and durham. British Journal of Preventative and Social Medicine, 18, 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthiopoulos, J. (2003). The use of space by animals as a function of accessibility and preference. Ecological Modelling, 159, 239–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, F. (2001). Repeat burglary in a Perth Suburb: Indicator of Short-Term or Long-Term risk? In: G. Farrell, & K. Pease (Eds.), Repeat Victimisation: Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 12, Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 935–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, B. V., Curtis, D., & Sham, P. C. (2002). A note on the Calculation of Empirical P Values from Monte Carlo Procedures. American. Journal. of Human. Genetics, 71, 439–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K. (1998). Repeat Victimization: Taking Stock. The Home Office: Police Research Group: Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1991). The time course of repeat burglary victimisation. British Journal of Criminology, 31(4), 411–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poot, C., Luykx, F., Elffers, H., & Dudnik, C. (2005). Hier wonen en daar plegen? Sociale grenzen en locatiekeuze. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 47(3), 255–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, J. (2000). Aoristic analysis: The spatial interpretation of unspecific temporal events. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 14(7), 669–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, J. (2006). A temporal constraint theory to explain opportunity-based spatial offending patterns. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(3), 261–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rengert, G., & Wasilchick, J. (2000). Suburban Burglary: A Tale of Two Suburbs. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebeau, J. L., & Rengert, G. (2006). The role of Racial/Ethnic barriers in the movement of drug offenders. Presentation at the Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis Seminar,Vancouver, June, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynald, R., Averdijk, M., Elffers, H., & Bernasco, W. (2006). Do social barriers affect urban crime trips? The effects of ethnic and socio-economic neighborhood compositions on the flow of crime in The Hague, The Netherlands. (NSCR 2006-4) Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw M., & Pease K. (2000). Research on Repeat Victimisation in Scotland’. Crime and Criminal Justice Research Findings 44. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2003). Infectious burglaries: A test of the near repeat hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 615–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseloni A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., & Pease K. (2004). Burglary Victimisation in the US, England and Wales and the Netherlands: Cross-national comparison of routine activity patterns. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 66–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseloni A., & Kershaw, C. (2005). Predicting crime rates: fear and disorder based on area information. Evidence from the British Crime Survey. International Review of Victimology, 12, 295–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winchester, S. W. C., & Jackson, H. (1982). Residential Burglary: The Limits of Prevention. Home Office Research Study 74. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R.T., & Decker, S. (1994). Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and Residential Break-Ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, London, UK

    Shane D. Johnson, Kate J. Bowers & Ken Pease

  2. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Dan J. Birks

  3. University of Loughborough and Chester University, United Kingdom

    Ken Pease

Authors
  1. Shane D. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate J. Bowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dan J. Birks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ken Pease
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    David Weisburd

  2. Department of Administration of Justice, George Mason University, Manassas, VA, USA

    David Weisburd

  3. Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) Leiden, The Netherlands

    Wim Bernasco  & Gerben J.N. Bruinsma  & 

  4. Department of Criminology, Leiden University, The Netherlands

    Gerben J.N. Bruinsma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Johnson, S.D., Bowers, K.J., Birks, D.J., Pease, K. (2009). Predictive Mapping of Crime by ProMap: Accuracy, Units of Analysis, and the Environmental Backcloth. 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_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation