CRIME MAPPING

I. Introduction

Crime is not a random event. Criminological research suggests that certain psychological,
social, or economic characteristics are associated with higher levels of criminal
involvement. Furthermore, particular lifestyles and patterns of activity place individuals at
a heightened risk for victimization. Crime fluctuates temporally as well: More crimes occur
in the evening as opposed to the morning, on weekends as opposed to weekdays, and in
summer months as opposed to winter months. It comes as no surprise that spatial
patterns of crime exist as well. For example, Sherman and colleagues (Sherman, Gartin,
& Buerger, 1989) found that approximately 50% of calls for service came from
approximately 3% of addresses in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Crime mapping is the process through which crime analysts and researchers use location
information about crime events to detect spatial patterns in criminal activity. Early crime
mapping efforts typically involved placing physical markers, such as pins, on maps to
designate the locations where crimes occurred. Patterns of criminal activity were
determined primarily through visual inspection of these maps. With the advances in
computing, geographic information system (GIS) software, such as MapInfo and ArcGIS,
enables researchers to convert geographic information (addresses or global positioning
system [GPS] coordinates) into coordinates used with virtual maps. Researchers and
crime analysts can then use a number of analytic software packages to examine and
detect patterns of criminal activity from these virtual maps.

This research paper is designed to offer an overview of the field of crime mapping. First,
the history of crime mapping is briefly discussed. After this, a brief overview of several
theoretical perspectives that have been used to understand the spatial patterns of crime
is provided. Following this, some of the major findings in spatial crime analyses are
discussed, particularly in regard to the relevance of implementation strategies designed
to combat crime. The research paper concludes with recommendations for future
directions in crime mapping research.

II. A Brief History of Crime Mapping

Interestingly, the earliest efforts at crime mapping can be traced to the roots of the
discipline of criminology itself. In the early 19th century, a number of studies examined
the distribution of crime in France and England. Brantingham and Brantingham (1991a)
provided an overview of some of the findings of the main studies from this era. Guerry
and Quetelet mapped crimes in France at the department level and found that crimes
were not distributed evenly across departments. They also found that there was stability
over time in both areas with high crime and areas with low crime over time. These findings
were echoed in England with studies by Plint, Glyde, and Mayhew.
In the United States, Shaw and McKay’s (1942) seminal study of juvenile delinquency in
Chicago made extensive use of crime maps. Shaw and McKay borrowed Park and
Burgess’s (1924) ecological model and divided the city into five different zones. They
found that the zone adjacent to the central business district, the zone of transition,
perpetually suffered from the highest rates of juvenile delinquency and other social
problems regardless of the specific ethnic group occupying the zone at the time. This
research was instrumental in popularizing social disorganization theory and inspired a
number of similar mapping projects in Chicago; Philadelphia; Richmond, Virginia;
Cleveland, Ohio; Birmingham, Alabama; Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; and
other cities.

Accompanying these early efforts in crime mapping were developments in the profession
of policing that provided additional opportunities for crime mapping. In the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, the professionalization movement in policing encouraged police
organizations to compile statistics documenting the extent of crime in their jurisdictions.
In fact, one of the main justifications for the creation of Federal Bureau of Investigation
was for the explicit purpose of documenting the extent of crime in the United States
through the Uniform Crime Reporting program (Mosher, Miethe, & Phillips, 2002). During
this time, many agencies began compiling crime statistics and conducting analyses of
crime data. Crime mapping was primarily done using pin maps, which were very time-
consuming and provided only a basic visualization of crime patterns.

The late 1960s and early 1970s were critical for the development of crime mapping. In
1966, the Harvard Lab for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis developed SYMAP
(Synagraphic Mapping System), one of the first widely distributed computerized mapping
software programs. The Environmental Science and Research Institute was founded in
1969 and in the subsequent decades emerged as one of the top distributors of GIS
software, including the current ArcView and ArcGIS software packages. Also around this
time, the U.S. Census Bureau began the ambitious GBF-DIME (Geographic Base Files
and Dual Independent Map Encoding) project, which was used to create digitized street
maps for all cities in the United States during the 1970 census (Mark, Chrisman, Frank,
McHaffie, & Pickles, 1997). These advances were necessary for the development of GIS
programs used in crime mapping.

The use of GIS programs for mapping has been the most important advance in the field
of crime mapping. There are several important advantages in using virtual maps instead
of physical maps. First, computers have dramatically reduced the time and effort required
to produce crime maps. Given the relatively low cost and user-friendliness of many of
these software programs, it no longer requires a substantial investment for agencies that
wish to engage in crime mapping. Second, these GIS programs reduce the amount of
error associated with assigning geographic coordinates to crime events. Third, virtual
maps are much more flexible than physical maps, allowing researchers and crime
analysts to compare the geographic distribution of crimes against other characteristics of
the area under investigation (e.g., census bureau information, city planning and zoning
maps, and maps produced by other agencies). Finally, GIS and other spatial analysis
software provide powerful statistical tools for analyzing and detecting patterns of criminal
activity that cannot be detected through simple visual inspection.

In the mid-1970s and early 1980s, a crisis of confidence in traditional police practices
emerged following the results of studies, such as the Kansas City Preventative Patrol
experiment, that suggested that the police were not effective in combating crime
(Weisburd & Lum, 2005). Goldstein’s (1979) problem-oriented policing emerged as a
response to this crisis and emphasized that policing should involve identifying emerging
crime and disorder problems and working to address the underlying causes of these
problems. Academic interests in the field of criminology also began to shift during this
time. While many criminologists were concerned with causes of crime that were outside
the sphere of influence of police agencies (e.g., economic depravation, differential
association, and social bonds), a number of researchers, such as Jeffery (1971), Newman
(1972), and Cohen and Felson (1979), began discussing factors that contribute to the
occurrence of crime that were more amenable to intervention. The combination of the
shift in theoretical focus in criminology and the shift in the philosophy of policing yielded
new opportunities for crime mapping and initiated a resurgence of research on both the
geography of crime as well as crime prevention strategies involving crime mapping.

Although the first instances of computerized crime mapping occurred in the mid-1960s in
St. Louis, Missouri, the adoption of computerized crime mapping across the United States
remained relatively slow. Although a number of agencies, in particular in larger
jurisdictions, became early adopters of computerized crime mapping technology, the
large period of growth in computerized crime mapping did not begin until the late 1980s
and early 1990s (Weisburd & Lum, 2005). The rate of adoption of crime mapping among
departments greatly increased as desktop computers became cheaper and more
powerful and GIS software became easier to use and more powerful. The Compstat
program, which started in 1994 in New York City, emphasized crime mapping as a central
component to strategic police planning and helped popularize crime mapping among
police agencies. With assistance from the Office of Community Oriented Police Services
and the National Institute of Justice, a large number of departments adopted
computerized crime mapping practices. By 1997, approximately 35% of departments with
more than 100 officers reported using crime mapping (Weisburd & Lum, 2005).

III. Theoretical Perspectives in Crime Mapping Research

As previously noted, the development of tools and techniques of crime mapping have
been accompanied by an expanding body of criminological theory oriented toward
explaining the geographic patterns of crime. It is important, when discussing theories
about the spatial distribution of crime, to distinguish between theories that explain
criminality and theories that explain criminal events. Traditional criminological
approaches tend to emphasize individual-level social and psychological characteristics
as the main factors that lead to criminality, that is, the propensity toward committing
criminal acts. These theories focus predominately on explaining why offenders engage
and persist in criminal lifestyles. Alternatively, theories that discuss the spatial distribution
of crime focus on explaining the patterns seen in criminal events, that is, the occurrences
of crime. These theories focus less attention on the motivations of offenders and more
attention on factors of the environment that promote crime.

A. Social Disorganization Theory

Although a number of theories have been proposed to explain why particular

neighborhoods experience high crime rates, social disorganization theory has been the
most influential. Social disorganization theory, as first proposed by Shaw and McKay
(1942), can be seen as the first attempt to construct a criminological theory of place. The
concept of social disorganization refers to “the inability of local communities to realize the
common values of their residents or solve commonly experienced problems” (Bursik,
1988, p. 521). As such, disorganized communities suffer from diminished capacities to
exercise social control and are unable to regulate the behavior of community members
(see Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). As the capacity of a community to regulate the behavior
of its members decreases, the potential for illegal activity increases.

A central tenet of social disorganization theory is that structural conditions within a

neighborhood attenuate the social ties that promote social cohesion and enable
community members to exercise social control. Economic depravation creates
undesirable living conditions that promote residential instability and population
heterogeneity. Because social ties require time to form, high residential instability in
neighborhoods prevents the development of social ties as residents frequently relocate
(Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). In neighborhoods with high levels of population heterogeneity
the extensiveness of friendship and acquaintance networks through which social control
is exercised is limited because of social and cultural barriers between residents (Bursik &
Grasmick, 1993). Structural factors such as these compromise the social integration of
neighborhood residents and undermine perceptions of collective efficacy, that is, the
collective sense of trust, social cohesion, and willingness to intervene on behalf of the
public good (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Neighborhoods that have low
collective efficacy are likely to experience high levels of crime.

B. Routine Activities Theory

Cohen and Felson’s (1979) routine activities theory has been applied extensively to
research on spatial patterns of crime. To Cohen and Felson, crime is a predatory activity
and, as such, can subsist only near patterns of legitimate activity. Therefore, to
understand crime patterns it is necessary to understand the patterns of conventional
routine activities around which crime is organized. Criminal victimization occurs where
routine activities produce a convergence in space and time of the three necessary
conditions for crime to occur: (1) a suitable target, (2) a motivated offender, and (3) the
absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Felson (1998) explained that
suitable targets have value to the offender, are visible to the offender, are easily moved
or removed, and are accessible by the offender. The concept of guardianship has also
been extended and includes intimate handlers, who are responsible for monitoring the
behavior of offenders; guardians, who are responsible for protecting targets; and place
managers, who are responsible for monitoring and controlling access to particular spaces
(see Eck, 2001). In applications of this theory to spatial crime analysis, structural features
of the city, patterns of land use, and the routine activities associated with particular
locations can concentrate motivated offenders and suitable targets into areas with limited
guardianship. This, in turn, fosters opportunities for criminal victimization.

C. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Defensible Space

Theories

A couple of important theories have been proposed to explain why criminal events occur
more frequently at particular sites. Jeffery (1971) was one of the first criminologists to
suggest that immediate features of the environment affected crime, with his Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach. This approach
emphasizes target hardening and surveillance. Contemporaneously, Newman (1972)
also emphasized the role of the environment in creating crime with his defensible space
theory. Newman argued, in regard to public housing, that it is possible to design the use
of space to enhance territorial functioning and to improve the natural surveillance in these
environments. Crowe (2000) expanded on both Jefferey’s and Newman’s initial theories.
In the current formulation of CPTED, Crowe discussed three strategies that are used to
prevent crime: (1) access control to prevent contact between the offender and the target,
(2) surveillance to monitor areas and discourage offenders, and (3) territorial
reinforcement to promote feelings of ownership among users of the space. CPTED is
usually employed along with situational crime prevention (discussed in the next section)
to formulate practical strategies for reducing crime.

D. Rational Choice Perspective and Situational Crime Prevention

The rational choice perspective (Cornish & Clarke, 1986) is primarily concerned with
understanding offender decision making. This approach assumes that offenders possess
limited rationality, meaning that they make rational calculations of the costs and benefits
associated with crime but are constrained in their decision making by time, information,
context, ability, and prior experiences. This perspective seeks to understand the series of
decisions made by the offender that result in a criminal event. Interestingly, unlike many
other theories of offending, the rational choice perspective emphasizes that different
decisions are involved in the production of different types of crime. Rational choice
explanations of criminal offending differ by crime type, instead of ignoring these
differences in favor of a general motivation toward engaging in crime, as is common in
many other criminological theories. Spatial applications of the rational choice perspective
emphasize offender movement, search patterns, and target selection processes that
determine the spatial patterns observed in crime.

Situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1997) refers to the application of the rational choice
perspective toward developing policy recommendations to reduce crime. Situational
crime prevention emphasizes situational-level interventions toward increasing the efforts
associated with committing a crime, increasing the perceived risks for engaging in crime,
reducing the anticipated rewards from crime, and removing the excuses associated with
crime (Clarke, 1997). As with the CPTED and defensible space theories, the policy
applications of situational crime prevention focus on practical strategies that are
customized to specific settings. Although the successes of this approach are well
documented, rarely do the methods used in these studies permit broad conclusions
regarding the effectiveness of this approach at reducing crime (see Clarke, 1997, for a
discussion).

E. Crime Pattern Theory

Brantingham and Brantingham (1991b, 1993) developed a perspective referred to as

crime pattern theory that incorporates elements of the rational choice, routine activities,
and other spatial perspectives on crime. According to this perspective, individuals create
a cognitive map of their spatial environment with which they are familiar through their
routine activities. The action space of an individual consists of (a) nodes, the destinations
of travel, such as work, home, and entertainment locations, and (b) paths, the travel
routes that individuals take to move from one node to another. Through repeated
movement along paths to various nodes, individuals develop an awareness space
consisting of the areas in a city with which they are familiar. According to this theory,
offenders search for suitable targets primarily within this awareness space by comparing
potential targets against templates, or mental conceptualizations of the characteristics of
appropriate targets. The likelihood of a particular target being selected by an offender
dramatically decreases as an offender moves away from his or her awareness space, a
process often referred to as distance decay (see Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999). One
interesting application of this theory is geographic profiling, which attempts to narrow the
scope of police investigations by using information on repeated crimes to identify the
awareness space of a repeat criminal (Rossmo, 2000).

IV. Spatial Crime Research and Planning Interventions

A. Hot Spots

As previously indicated, a large number of studies have demonstrated that criminal events
are spatially concentrated. Although the extent of concentration differs between studies,
all empirical evidence suggests that a small number of places account for the majority of
crime within any given city. Sherman and colleagues (1989) popularized the term hot spot
to describe these areas where crime is concentrated. The detection and explanation of
these hot spots is a major concern of research in crime mapping. Hot-spot analysis is
currently very popular among police agencies because it provides a method to coordinate
interventions in emerging problem areas.

A number of studies have demonstrated the benefits of hot-spot analysis to help

coordinate police responses to crime. For example, in a randomized experiment in
Minneapolis, Sherman and Weisburd (1995) found that concentrated patrol efforts in hot-
spot areas produced a significant decline in calls for service. Police responses to crime
are not limited to enhanced patrol. In another randomized experiment in Jersey City, New
Jersey, Weisburd and Green (1995) found that after identifying drug market hot spots
using crime mapping, a coordinated policy of engaging business owners and community
members coupled with police crackdowns yielded substantial decreases in disorder calls
for service. In fact, a recently conducted meta-analysis on street-level drug enforcement
indicated that approaches that focus on community–police partnerships in drug market
hot spots were more effective than enforcement-only approaches (Mazerolle, Soole, &
Rombouts, 2006). This suggests that the best approach is a coordinated strategy
between police officers and community members toward reducing crime in identified hot
spots.

B. Community-Level Factors Affecting Crime

When designing strategies to address crime in hot-spot areas, it is important to consider

the community context that contributes to emergence and maintenance of hot spots.
Neighborhood-level research on spatial crime patterns helps illuminate the factors
associated with heightened levels of crime. As previously mentioned, economic
depravation, residential mobility, and population heterogeneity all contribute to higher
levels of crime in a neighborhood by impeding the development of social ties between
residents (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). Family dissolution and inadequate supervision of
adolescents also contribute to increased levels of crime. In fact, the presence of
unsupervised adolescents in a community is an important predictor of violent crime in a
neighborhood (Veysey & Messner, 1999). Rose and Clear (1998) suggested that prior
crime policies that result in mass incarceration may also impair community functioning,
because in some communities this represents a substantial loss in the social and human
capital on which informal social control depends.

Although many of the structural factors contributing to social disorganization remain

outside the control of police agencies, such as concentrated disadvantage and high
residential mobility, it remains possible to design interventions to increase social
integration and improve collective efficacy. Community policing emphasizes community
involvement in responding to crime problems through the creation of police–community
partnerships, which should both increase community access to public social control and
foster improved trust between community members and police officers. Furthermore,
programs designed to increase community integration through increasing resident
involvement in local agencies should be helpful in fostering the development of social ties
and increasing perceptions of collective efficacy. Finally, if Rose and Clear (1998) are
correct, community corrections and offender reintegration efforts should alleviate some
of the impact of the mass incarceration policies that have removed offenders from the
community. Bursik and Grasmick (1993) provided an extensive discussion on various
community-based interventions and provided suggestions for how to improve these
programs.

In addition to the previously discussed factors, a fair amount of research has examined
the effects of incivilities on crime and the fear of crime within a community. Incivilities,
such as poorly tended residences, the accumulation of refuse, graffiti, and public loitering
and drunkenness, are signs of disorder. A number of studies have demonstrated that the
presence of incivilities in a neighborhood is associated with increased levels of serious
crime and with heightened fear of crime among community residents (see Skogan, 1990).
Sampson and colleagues (1997), however, suggested that this relationship is spurious
and that crime and incivilities result from the same underlying causal process, namely, a
lack of collective efficacy. Although the causal role of incivilities in producing crime is in
doubt, they may still function as leading indicators of potential crime problems, meaning
that mapping incivilities may provide information on communities where hot spots may be
emerging.

C. City Features and Crime Locations

In truly comprehensive strategies for addressing crime in hot-spot areas, it is important

not only to examine neighborhood-level factors that contribute to the emergence of a
crime hot spot but also to consider microlevel place characteristics that promote crime.
As Sherman and colleagues (1989) noted, even within high-crime neighborhoods there
is substantial variability in the levels of crime. Some places within these neighborhoods
experience very low levels of crime, whereas other places are responsible for a
substantial amount of the crime.

A number of studies have demonstrated that hot spots of crime tend to emerge around
particular features of the urban environment, such as bars and taverns (Roncek & Maier,
1993), fast food restaurants (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1982), schools (Roncek &
Faggiani, 1985), public housing (Roncek, Bell, & Francik, 1981), vacant buildings
(Spelman, 1993), and public transportation (Block & Davis, 1996). These locations may
promote crime by juxtaposing motivated offenders and suitable targets in the absence of
capable guardians. Furthermore, the pattern and timing of criminal events in these areas
follow the rhythm of legitimate social activity in these areas. For example, crime around
bars is more common during evenings and weekends, because more legitimate patrons
visit bars during this time. Crime is more common around schools during the school year
and after school, because many students interact at this time near school grounds without
teacher or parental supervision. Understanding the relationship between the pattern of
legitimate social activity and criminal activity around these areas allows researchers and
policymakers to design suitable crime prevention strategies.

In addition to identifying the location and timing of criminal events at particular sites, it is
important to discern the mechanism through which these areas produce criminal
opportunities. Brantingham and Brantingham (1993) discussed the differences between
crime generators and crime attractors. Crime generators, such as transit stations, foster
criminal activity by bringing both victims and offenders into a location. On the other hand,
crime attractors, such as bars and taverns, tend to bring higher proportions of offenders
into an area because these locations are tied to patterns of illicit activity. It is important to
discern whether a given location functions as a crime generator or a crime attractor,
because the appropriateness and effectiveness of intervention strategies may differ by
type of location.

There is no shortage of practical policy recommendations for reducing or eliminating

criminal opportunities around hot-spot areas. Clarke’s (1997) situational crime prevention
model offers a set of 16 different opportunity-reducing strategies. Among those most
applicable to location-based interventions are controlling access and entry/exit screening;
improving surveillance by officers, civilians, and citizens; deflecting offenders by
disrupting routines that promote crime; and facilitating compliance with rules. Use of these
strategies to control opportunities for crime may help reduce the risks of victimization in
hot-spot areas.

D. Crime Displacement

Unanticipated consequences are always a concern when designing an intervention. For

interventions in crime hot spots, crime displacement is of particular importance. After the
intervention is implemented and crime opportunities are reduced, it is possible that
offenders simply relocate their activities to areas outside the intervention site. For
example, if a police crackdown on drug trafficking is initiated at a particular intersection
that is a hot spot for drug dealing, it is possible that offenders will simply move to a nearby
intersection, and drug sales will continue. Other types of crime displacement, such as
offenders committing crime during different times, offenders selecting different targets, or
even offenders committing different types of crimes, also are possible. Given the wide
ranges of different responses that might constitute crime displacement, it is difficult to
conclusively demonstrate that crime displacement did not occur during a particular study.
For this reason, any researchers or policymakers implementing place-based intervention
strategies should be keen to the possibility of crime displacement. Fortunately, the
empirical literature on crime displacement is decidedly mixed, and it appears that many
interventions do not lead to appreciable crime displacement effects (Clarke, 1997).

V. Future Directions and Challenges in Crime Mapping

On the basis of the current research on the spatial patterns of crime, a number of avenues
of research in crime mapping are worth exploring. Obviously, a major focus for future
research in this area will be further development and refinement of the tools needed in
crime mapping studies. Although not discussed in this research paper, there are
substantial methodological and analytic difficulties that remain in crime mapping research.
Beyond this, however, there are a number of substantive research avenues in crime
mapping that are worth pursuing.

A first avenue of research is the further development and integration of theories of the
spatial distribution of crime. Although there have been some efforts at integrating social
disorganization and routine activities theories (see Miethe & Meier, 1994), additional work
remains. These theories share considerable conceptual overlap, and linking the two
should provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship
between crime at the macroand microlevels. Furthermore, the criminal events perspective
(Meier, Kennedy, & Sacco, 2001; Sacco & Kennedy, 2002) provides a mechanism to link
other theories of criminality with theories of criminal events. To date, the implications of
other theories of criminality for understanding the spatial distribution of crime remains
unexplored and may provide useful insights into offender search patterns and the
selection of targets and locations.
A second area of research that would be very helpful in regard to policymakers is
expanding crime mapping to include additional justice agencies. The vast majority of
research in crime mapping has used calls for service and crime report data, and most
applications of crime mapping have been applied to police decision making. Researchers
should consider broadening the scope of crime mapping efforts to incorporate data from
other justice agencies. In a practical sense, mapping efforts involving other agencies can
provide assistance with managing caseloads and coordinating the distribution of services.
For example, mapping the residences of parolees and probationers can help agencies
optimize caseloads and improve the process of referring ex-offenders to nearby treatment
facilities. In addition, novel data can provide new measures of concepts that are
commonly used in geographic research, raise interesting research questions, and
possibly introduce new avenues of research.

A third potentially fruitful area of research would involve increased attention to the
differences between types of city features and the production of criminal events. As
previously discussed, it is well established that certain city features tend to concentrate
criminal events in adjacent areas. What remains to be seen, however, is how other spatial
and community features contribute to differential spatial patterns of crime. For example,
it is not entirely clear why some bars suffer from high levels of crime problems and others
do not. Obviously, design features of the location itself should account for some of the
differences, but other features, such as the level of community organization, adjacent land
usage, and the level of concentration of other crime generators or attractors, may also be
important for differentiating between problematic and nonproblematic bars.

A final recommendation for future research on spatial patterns in crime is to further

examine the stability of crime in small areas. Specifically, as Weisburd, Bushway, Lum,
and Yang (2004) recognized, few studies have examined the degree to which crime in
microlevel areas is stable over time. In their study, conducted in Seattle over a 14-year
period, Weisburd et al. found that there was a substantial amount of stability in the level
of crime on street segments. Despite the high degree of stability in many places, some
street segments exhibited either downward or upward crime trajectories. Obviously,
additional research is needed to determine whether this pattern holds generally or is
specific to the city of Seattle. This type of research will be very helpful in describing the
factors that lead to the development, maintenance, and decline of crime in problematic
areas.

VI. Conclusion

The purpose of this research paper was to review some of the current research on crime
mapping, the process through which crime analysts and researchers use location
information about crime to detect spatial patterns in criminal activity. Although the history
of crime mapping can be traced to the beginnings of the field of criminology, it is only
recently that researchers and crime analysts have been able to engage in extensive
mapping efforts, primarily due to the development of the desktop computer and GIS
software.
The emergence of the problem-oriented policing model, along with advances in the theory
of criminal events, created a niche for crime mapping in police agencies. The
popularization of computerized crime mapping through the Compstat program in New
York led to a period of rapid adoption of crime mapping that continues today.

Several theories that are widely used in crime mapping research were also discussed in
this research paper. Social disorganization theory argues that structural factors can
compromise the social networks needed for social integration, which in turn reduces the
capacity of communities to regulate the behavior of its members. Routine activities theory
states that crime can be understood through the convergence in time and space of
suitable targets, motivated offenders, and the absence of capable guardians. Defensible
space and CPTED focuses on how the design of a physical space can prevent crime
through increasing territorial functioning and enhancing surveillance capabilities. The
rational choice and crime pattern theories of crime focus primarily on explaining how
patterns of offender routine activities and target-searching strategies can increase the
level of crime in particular areas. Taken together, these theories provide the conceptual
backdrop for understanding the spatial distribution of crime and designing strategies to
combat crime in high-crime areas.

Finally, this research paper aimed to elaborate on some of the major findings in crime
mapping and spatial crime research, with particular attention to designing strategies to
combat crime problems. It was argued that the best strategy for eliminating crime hot
spots requires consideration of causal factors operating at both the neighborhood and
site levels. This research paper concluded with a number of suggestions for future
researchers examining spatial crime patterns through crime mapping. In particular, crime
mapping research may benefit from efforts at theoretical integration, using crime mapping
with additional agencies, further examining the source of differences in the production of
criminal opportunities between city features, and examining the stability of crime areas
over time.

Read more about Criminology.

References:

1. Block, R., & Davis, S. (1996). The environs of rapid transit stations: A focus for
street crime or just another risky place? In R. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention
studies: Vol. 6. Preventing mass transit crime. (pp. 237–257). Monsey, NY:
Criminal Justice Press.
2. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1982). Mobility, notoriety, and crime: A
study in crime patterns of urban nodal points. Journal of Environmental Systems,
11, 89–99.
3. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1991a). Introduction: The dimensions of
crime. In P. J Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology
(pp. 7–26). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.
4. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1991b). Notes on the geometry of crime.
In P. J. Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp.
27–54). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.
5. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1993). Nodes, paths, and edges:
Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.
6. Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency:
Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.
7. Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions
of effective community control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
8. Clarke, R. V. (1997). Part 1: Introduction. In R. Clarke (Ed.). Situational crime
prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed., pp. 1–44). Albany, NY: Harrow &
Heston.
9. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime trends:A routine
activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
10. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). Introduction. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.),
The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 1–13). New
York: Springer- Verlag.
11. Crowe, T. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design: Applications of
architectural design and space management concepts (2nd ed.). Boston:
Butterworth- Heinemann.
12. Eck, J. E. (2001). Policing and crime event concentration. In R. F. Meier, L. W.
Kennedy, & V. F. Sacco (Eds.), The process and structure of crime: Criminal
events and crime analysis (pp. 249–276). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
13. Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
14. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime &
Delinquency, 25, 236–258.
15. Jeffery, C. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverley Hills,
CA: Sage.
16. Mark, D. M., Chrisman, N., Frank, A. U., McHaffie, P. H., & Pickles, J. (1997). The
GIS History Project. Retrieved from
http://www.ncgia.buffalo.edu/gishist/bar_harbor.html
17. Mazerolle, L., Soole, D. L., & Rombouts, S. (2006). Street-level drug law
enforcement: A meta analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 409–
435.
18. Meier, R. F., Kennedy, L.W., & Sacco,V. F. (2001). Crime and the criminal events
perspective. In R. F.Meier, L.W. Kennedy, & V. F. Sacco (Eds.), The process and
structure of crime: Criminal events and crime analysis (pp. 1–28). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
19. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. M. (1994). Crime and its social context. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
20. Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Phillips, D. M. (2002). The mismeasure of crime.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design.
New York: Collier Books.
22. Park, R. E., & Burgess E. W. (1924). Introduction to the science of sociology (2nd
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Rengert, G. F., Piquero, A. R., & Jones, P. R. (1999). Distance decay re-examined.
Criminology, 37, 427–445.
24. Roncek, D. W., Bell, R., & Francik, J. M. A. (1981). Housing projects and crime.
Social Problems, 29, 151–166.
25. Roncek, D. W., & Faggiani, D. (1985). High schools and crime: A replication.
Sociological Quarterly, 26, 491–505.
26. Roncek, D. W., & Maier, P. A. (1993). Bars, blocks, and crime revisited: Linking
the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots.” Criminology, 29,
725–753.
27. Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime:
Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441–478.
28. Rossmo, K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
29. Sacco, V. F., & Kennedy, L. W. (2002). The criminal event: Perspectives in space
and time. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
30. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997, August 15).
Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multi-level study of collective efficacy.
Science, 277, 918–924.
31. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas.
Chicago: University. of Chicago Press.
32. Sherman, L.W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory
crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.
33. Sherman, L.W., &Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in
crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.
34. Skogan,W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in
American neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35. Spelman, W. (1993). Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 21, 481–495.
36. Veysey, B. M., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Further testing of social disorganization
theory: An elaboration of Sampson and Grove’s “community structure and crime.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 156–174.
37. Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S. (2004). Trajectories of crime at
places:A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology,
42, 283–321.
38. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City Drug
Market Experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–736.
39. Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in
policing: Linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 6, 419–434.