Spatial Analysis of Terrorism

MARCH 2010www.et21symposium.org

PROGRAM ON GLOBAL SECURITY

et21.rutgers.edu

Danielle Rusnak

is pursuing a doctoraldegree in CriminalJustice at RutgersUniversity (Newark Campus) and iscurrently involved inresearch on the spatialanalysis of terrorism aswell as time seriesanalysis of recidivism. She has been engaged with theresearch process sinceher undergraduate work at Le Moyne Collegewhere she aided in thecreation of a terrorismincident data basewhich resulted in anarticle entitled“UnderstandingTerrorist Strategies:Examining ChechenBombings from 1997-2003”. She additionallyhas a MA in ForensicPsychology from JohnJay College where shealso was involved inother research projectssuch as the ArresteeDrug Abuse MonitoringProject in conjunctionwith the ONDCP andthe FBI BehavioralScience Unit.

SYMPOSIUM BRIEF

Introduction

Terrorism, not a novel concept in the research field, has become an increasingly popu-lar topic of interest since the events of 9/11/01. With the attacks of September 11

hascome a heightened awareness of the threat that terrorism poses to the world, not justremote areas of the Middle East. The scholarly understanding of such violence lackscomprehensive data and a solid method for measuring and evaluating possible targetsof terrorism as well as a unified approach to analysis. The advancement of under-standing of the pathways and context will require a more comprehensive and reliableapproach to terrorism research; one such approach incorporates the use of spatialanalysis combined with reliable and valid risk assessment modeling.

Data Needs and Structures

As Smith et al. (2008) noted, for reliable and consistent analysis more expansive datacollection is needed. Fortunately, organizations such as the National Center for theStudy of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) have complied detailed his-torical information on each terrorist event around the world since 1970 into the GlobalTerrorism Database (LaFree and Dugan, 2007; Wang et al., 2008). Terrorism datacollection in general has encountered many challenges yet still runs into a few morewhen dealing with spatial analysis. One of the major problems with data collection prior to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) is that it was limited to internationalterrorism whereas research has indicated that domestic terrorism outnumbers interna-tional terrorism (LaFree and Dugan, 2007). Previous databases can not address theglobal phenomenon of terrorism adequately with the exclusion of domestic terrorism.Another major challenge to terrorism data is that current databases, GTD in-cluded, lack individual, address level data which is needed to spatially analyze. For example, Guo, Liao, and Morgan (2007) attempted the spatial analysis of terrorism butused only aggregate regional data of areas such as the Middle East or Europe.Braithwaite and Li (in press) however did attempt to spatially and temporally analyzecountry level data but still did not examine individual or neighborhood level incidents.Therefore, current research indicates a need for more in depth analysis. Proper analy-sis entails long tedious data collection via researching each terrorist incident’s latitudeand longitude to accurately spatially analyze the event and accurately map the data point. Additionally, geographic mapping, especially on the global level, encounters190 University Ave, Suite 219 Newark, New Jersey 07102Tel (973) 353-5416 Fax (973) 353-5074

ET21 PROGRAM ON GLOBAL SECURITY

March 2010

the challenge of finding reliable and up-to-date shape files. This is noted from personal experi-ence in attempting to spatially analyze terrorism within Turkey since most studies fail to ad-dress this issue. If shape files are not accurate and reliable then the geographical data point willinadequately represent an event spatially and misrepresent the proximity or distal nature of ter-rorist targets to geography.Moreover, there is an inability within current spatial analysis software to adequately in-corporate multiple variables which are necessary to see the whole picture of terrorism and even-tually forecast risk. Organizations such as the RAND Center for Terrorism Risk ManagementPolicy (CTRMP) estimated the risk of terrorism by incorporating the vulnerability, threat andconsequence of possible terrorist target areas using factors such as weighted population densityand urbanization for example (2005). Various formulas or models have been created by other researchers or organizations to better address the issue of terrorism risk and spatial analysis.However, to reliably and validly spatially analyze terrorism so that it will have practical andtactical purposes, a uniform model and method of risk level analysis for terrorist target coun-tries is needed. If this is achieved then research could focus more on deciphering which factorsactually contribute to creating a high risk terrain for potential terrorist attacks.

Threat/Risk Assessment Methodology

In order for agencies to accurately assess the extent or threat of a terrorist situation andallocate resources, the focus should be on proactive rather than reactive measures. For exampleBraithwaite and Li (in press) noted that policymakers could anticipate the efficiency of counter-terrorist measures and provide a social scientific rationale for such policies. Forecasting of ter-rorist incidents will address this concern as it is the spatial analysis of data which attempts toestablish the geographic location of a possible subsequent event. It is important to note thatforecasting and prediction are not one in the same. Prediction centers on the presence or ab-sence of a terrorist event (Cohen, 2006). Forecasting however, as with risk assessment, focuseson the complex conditions of the environment where a terrorist attack

might

occur. Therefore‘forecast’ may be a more applicable term than ‘predict’ for spatial analysis of terrorism sinceresponding to the event is not of importance, identification of a threat and prevention are of sig-nificance. “The unit of analysis” therefore for forecasting should be and “is the geography, notthe event” (Caplan and Kennedy, 2009).Using geography as a unit of analysis has become commonplace within the spatialanalysis of terrorism. Braithwaite and Li conducted one of a handful of studies that attemptedto analyze terrorism using geography via hot spot analysis and included in analysis a country’ssusceptibility to future terrorist attacks based identification of such hot spots. However, moststudies have not used a common model or formula to calculate hot spots or risk levels of certaingeographic locations. There are actually some benefits to using spatial analysis in combinationwith mathematical models/formulas as opposed to only statistical techniques.Spatial analysis, represented via the use of geographical maps allow for a visualdepiction of an occurrence. Presenting data in a visual format can be a strong method for com-municating information. There is the ability to both analyze spatial and temporal patterns, if any exist, for a large set of data quickly, and tactically. Tactical analysis operates in a specific

Spatial Analysis of Terrorism

ET21 PROGRAM ON GLOBAL SECURITY

March 2010

timeframe, one of recent occurrences (what is happening now or has recently occurred) which isof great use to police forces or counterterrorism agencies. For example, maps have been notedto be used by police forces to prioritize and allocate resources and funds for preventative meas-ures and are central to problem-oriented policing approaches (Caplan and Kennedy, 2009;Chainey and Ratcliffe, 2005).The visualization of events helps to better and more easily communicate across disciplines what is actually occurring with regard to terrorism. This in turn makes it easier for multiple disciplines (academia, governmental agencies and even laypeople) to comprehend the na-ture and extent of terrorism which will not only lessen the irrational fear of a terrorist attack butalso aid in the forecast of potential attacks. However, variability and error in estimates of threats and consequences are often overlooked as well as the vulnerability of targets since re-sponse is generally reactive rather than proactive to terror incidents. If a proactive stance istaken, then possible forecasting of events may lead to the prevention of such an incident.“There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical, social, eco-nomic, and environmental factors. Examples may include poor design and construction of buildings, inadequate protection of assets, lack of public information and awareness, limitedofficial recognition of risks and preparedness measures, and disregard for wise environmentalmanagement” (UNISDR, 2009). Vulnerability is represented by the probability of a terror at-tack, given a threat of attack (Willis, 2005; Willis et al, 2005). Vulnerability, like crime, is con-textual and can vary significantly within a community and over time making consistency of be-havior and consequently behavioral patterns harder to ascertain without the level of vulnerabil-ity.Current risk level analyses include vulnerability, threat and consequence as componentsrisk (Masse et al., 2007; Srujan, 2008; Willis, 2005; Willis et al, 2005). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) uses the same components (threat, vulnerability and consequence) toassess risk. However, because of difficulties with vulnerability values across geographic areasDHS assigned the same value across the board for vulnerability therefore inadequately address-ing the vulnerability component, leaving only the threat and consequence to forecast risk.Once a reliable and common formula and/or model can be constructed to consistentlyand reliably assess risk level vulnerability, counter terrorist measures and resources could betactically allocated to address the ‘high risk’ geographic areas.

Analytics

Spatial analysis of terrorism is valid as risk has somewhat of a spatial component since people operate in time and space. Geographical and/or temporal factors of terrorism, likecrime, are key to understand in order to assess risk level. “Assessing criminogenic risk at thegeographical level…allows for a more strategic allocation of resources” (Caplan and Kennedy,2009). However, an empirically based model that incorporates geographic vulnerabilities aswell as various terrorism factors is still needed to adequately assess risk.Current research on spatial analysis of terrorism has been varied and incon-sistent. Spatial analysis studies done on terrorism have included different variables or measure-ments. Most studies used simple statistical techniques or graphs as visual representations, not both. Even with the notoriety of using spatial analysis with certain types of crime, researchershave yet to fully implement a project to analyze terrorism spatially (Wang, et al 2008). The few