Скачать презентацию Crime Risk Models Specifying Boundaries and Environmental Backcloths Скачать презентацию Crime Risk Models Specifying Boundaries and Environmental Backcloths

cf46e2b75e2bf50d347497b51ceea103.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 26

Crime Risk Models: Specifying Boundaries and Environmental Backcloths Kate Bowers Crime Risk Models: Specifying Boundaries and Environmental Backcloths Kate Bowers

Introduction • Crime Risk Model specification – Boundaries • Units of Analysis – Environmental Introduction • Crime Risk Model specification – Boundaries • Units of Analysis – Environmental backcloth • Land use • Housing • Accessibility – Crime Risk Model Accuracy • Determining map accuracy and utility • Testing against chance models – Future Projects • CA modelling of risk • Area linking models • Multi-level models

MAUP- The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem • 'the areal units (zonal objects) used in MAUP- The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem • 'the areal units (zonal objects) used in many geographical studies are arbitrary, modifiable, and subject to the whims and fancies of whoever is doing, or did, the aggregating. ' (Openshaw, 1984 p. 3). • Staggering number of different options for aggregating data – Administrative boundaries – Automatic non-overlapping boundaries • Grids and polygons • Two problems exist – Scale- variation which occurs when data from one scale of areal unit is aggregated into more or less areal units. – Aggregation- wide variety of different possible areal units

Burglaries per 100 households Burglaries per 100 households

Hot beats Hot beats

Traditional Hotspot Map Yellow= burglaries within two days Green= burglaries within 7 days Traditional Hotspot Map Yellow= burglaries within two days Green= burglaries within 7 days

Prospective Map Yellow= burglaries within two days Green= burglaries within 7 days Prospective Map Yellow= burglaries within two days Green= burglaries within 7 days

Map Evaluation • Map accuracy: – Number of “hits” – Search efficiency (hits per Map Evaluation • Map accuracy: – Number of “hits” – Search efficiency (hits per unit area) • Map practicality: – Number of hot areas – Size of hot areas

Map Evaluation: accuracy 2 days (26) 1 week (70) Area covered Search efficiency (2 Map Evaluation: accuracy 2 days (26) 1 week (70) Area covered Search efficiency (2 day per km 2) Prospective Map 62% 64% 5. 4 km 2 2. 96 Traditional Hotspot Map 46% 5. 4 km 2 2. 22 Beat Map 12% 24% 5. 1 km 2 0. 59

Map evaluation: practicality Prospective Map Traditional Hotspot Map Mean area 12778 m 2 56502 Map evaluation: practicality Prospective Map Traditional Hotspot Map Mean area 12778 m 2 56502 m 2 Mean perimeter 377 m 925 m No. of hotspots 79 19 Mean AP ratio 10 51

Friction surfaces/opportunity structure • Opportunity structure (Flow enablers) – Land use, distribution of houses, Friction surfaces/opportunity structure • Opportunity structure (Flow enablers) – Land use, distribution of houses, house type and tenure (see Groff & La Vigne, 2001) • Friction – distance, topology (water, railways etc), crime prevention activity, social factors (affluence and cohesion) • Facilitators – Proximity to bus stops and roads (see Brantinghams)

Accounting for Background: Method • GIS- vector grid mapping- 50 metre grid squares • Accounting for Background: Method • GIS- vector grid mapping- 50 metre grid squares • Housing- OS Land Line – Number of houses in each square – Average area of houses – Physical area of square used covered by housing • Roads – Number of sections of roads running through grid square – Length of road running through square – Classification of road (Major, Minor) • Weighting squares – Housing alone – Roads alone – Combinations

Mapping Layers: Land Use and Crime Risk Mapping Layers: Land Use and Crime Risk

Accuracy concentration curve for the promap algorithm and chance expectation Accuracy concentration curve for the promap algorithm and chance expectation

Accuracy concentration curve for the KDE algorithm and chance expectation Accuracy concentration curve for the KDE algorithm and chance expectation

Accuracy concentration curve for the Beat map generated for the rate of burglary per Accuracy concentration curve for the Beat map generated for the rate of burglary per 1000 households

Accuracy concentration curve for the promap algorithm (including both opportunity surfaces) and chance expectation Accuracy concentration curve for the promap algorithm (including both opportunity surfaces) and chance expectation

Median mapping algorithm accuracy Percentage of burglaries identified 25 50 75 90 Prospective: Promap Median mapping algorithm accuracy Percentage of burglaries identified 25 50 75 90 Prospective: Promap 1. 39 5. 09 14. 39 30. 89 55. 36 Promap*Houses 1. 59 5. 09 14. 39 28. 39 48. 88 Promap*RDs 1. 39 4. 89 13. 39 29. 09 52. 57 Promap*Houses*RDs 1. 59 4. 59 12. 59 29. 39 56. 35 Chance: Simulation 95 th Percentile 3. 8 11. 5 27. 3 44. 8 56. 8 Simulation Mean 7. 0 17. 0 34. 3 51. 3 61. 3 Retrospective: KDE 2. 09 6. 59 16. 89 34. 87 59. 04 Choropleth (concentration) 4. 03 15. 50 35. 40 49. 12 63. 02 Choropleth (rate per area) 3. 34 10. 85 23. 47 42. 55 58. 82 Choropleth (rate per homes) 6. 41 17. 62 31. 70 50. 02 69. 11 Percentage of cells searched 10

Relative vulnerability of different housing types 201918 24. 68 26689 26. 44 Detached 4122 Relative vulnerability of different housing types 201918 24. 68 26689 26. 44 Detached 4122 53364 15. 45 4428 16. 60 Terraced 23824 214023 22. 26 26490 24. 75 Flats 12184 103199 23. 61 13515 26. 19 Incidence rate Total number of houses of type 24915 Total number of incidents Households burgled Semi-detached Prevalenc e rate April 1995 -2000

Prevalence rates for different types of housing in each quintile April 95 -00 Prevalence Prevalence rates for different types of housing in each quintile April 95 -00 Prevalence rate Housing Type Semi Detached Terraced Flat Quintile 1 16. 37 (6176) 10. 32 (1793) 18. 87 (498) 12. 29 (318) Quintile 2 20. 39 (6179) 17. 85 (1038) 18. 44 (2485) 15. 87 (1018) Quintile 3 29. 56 (5206) 27. 46 (579) 21. 31 (6150) 20. 26 (1838) Quintile 4 44. 16 (3965) 57. 83 (336) 21. 95 (7751) 25. 69 (2701) Quintile 5 53. 21 (3377) 71. 29 (391) 25. 91 (6924) 27. 31 (6285)

Where next? - Modelling Street Network • Examples of the accessibility measure used by Where next? - Modelling Street Network • Examples of the accessibility measure used by Beavon et al. (1994) • Quickest path analysis (connectivity of grid squares)

Where next? - Multi-level models • Individuals: Victims vs repeat victims – Housing type Where next? - Multi-level models • Individuals: Victims vs repeat victims – Housing type – MO of offence – Victim characteristics • Small area: Cell or neighbourhood – Accessibility – Housing details – Crime risk levels • Larger area: Census tract – Social and demographic information

Where Next? - FCA: Local density-dependent transmission Possible outcomes: Immune Pathogen extinction (short infectious Where Next? - FCA: Local density-dependent transmission Possible outcomes: Immune Pathogen extinction (short infectious period) prevalence • Susceptible time prevalence • Host-pathogen coexistence (long infectious period) time Slide by Joanne Turner (University of Liverpool) Infected Unoccupied

Where Next? - CA Model Parameters • Re-infection rates – Different levels and lengths Where Next? - CA Model Parameters • Re-infection rates – Different levels and lengths of immunity possible • Target hardening/ Police patrolling • Greater susceptibility in some than others – Random short lived susceptibility • ‘Infection’ beginning from and re-occurring in different areas – Random sparks • Weak infectious models are possible • Non-uniformity of contiguous cells

References Johnson, S. D. , and Bowers, K. J. (forthcoming 2007). Burglary Prediction: Theory, References Johnson, S. D. , and Bowers, K. J. (forthcoming 2007). Burglary Prediction: Theory, Flow and Friction. In Graham Farrell, Kate Bowers, Shane Johnson and Michael Townsley (Eds. ), Crime Prevention studies Volume 21, Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press Johnson, S. D. , Bowers, K. J. , Birks, D. J. & Pease, K. (forthcoming 2007). Micro-Level Forecasting of Burglary: The Role of Environmental Factors. In W. Bernasco and D. Weisburd (Eds) Crime and Place, in preparation. Johnson, S. D. , Mc. Laughlin, L. , Birks, D. J. , Bowers, K. J. & Pease, K. (forthcoming 2007) Prospective crime mapping in operational context. Home Office On-Line Report Bowers, K. J. , Johnson, S. D. , & Pease, K. (2005). (Re)Victimisation risk, housing type and area: a study of interactions Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 7(1), 7 -17 Bowers, K. J. , Johnson, S. and Pease, K. (2004) Prospective Hotspotting: The Future of Crime Mapping? British Journal of Criminology 44 (5), 641 -658. Hirschfield, A. F. G. , Yarwood, D. & Bowers, K. (2001) Spatial Targeting and GIS: The Development of New Approaches for Use in Evaluating Community Safety Initiatives in M. Madden and G. Clarke, (eds) Regional Science in Business, Springer-Verlag.

Nearest Neighbour Index: Retrospective and Prospective Methods Nearest Neighbour Index: Retrospective and Prospective Methods