An array of subsequent studies linked crime spatially to liquor establishments and other risky facilities (Bowers 2013 Franquez et al. Dennis Roncek related block-level crime to such land uses as secondary schools and bars (see Roncek and Bell 1981 Roncek and Lobosco 1983 Roncek and Fagianni 1985 Roncek and Maier 1991). The Brantinghams ( 1975, 1981) considered how certain local land uses set the stage for proximate crimes. Shaw and McKay ( 1942) and White ( 1932) included local land use variables in their analyses. Several studies have linked crime to variations in land use. Land use studies, implying a temporal dimension In addition, Andresen and Malleson ( 2013) observed crime concentrations at three spatial scales in the same city: street segments, CTs, and dissemination areas. 2014), and the Netherlands (Bernasco and Luykx 2003). Crime concentration tendencies have been shown strongly in Britain (Johnson 2010, 2014), Australia (Townsley et al. Approximately 5 % of street segments produce at least half the crime in several cities (Weisburd et al. In particular, the highly unequal distribution of crime over urban space has been well documented. Crime’s spatial concentration, without a temporal dimensionĬlarke and Eck ( 2005) have stated a larger rule of concentration, the 80–20 rule, which tells us that crime is highly concentrated among offenders, victims, or places. That early finding is relevant to a contemporary research question-why does urban crime concentrate in some places? Such concentrations have long been associated with social features of the residential population, but it is increasingly evident that daily nonresidential activities distribute crime unevenly over space, beyond residential effects. Ninety years ago, Burgess ( 1925) noted that people often commit crimes in census tracts (CTs) where they do not reside.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |