The aim of this paper is to discuss the representation of space in statistical models of urban crime. We argue that some important information represented by the properties of space is either lost or hardly interpretable if those properties are not explicitly introduced in the model as regressors. We illustrate the issue commenting on the shortcomings of the two standard approaches to modeling the dispersion of crime in a city: using local attributes of places as regressors, and defining a catch-all spatial component to neutralize the effect of latent spatial factors from the model. As an alternative to the current methods, the metrics of spatial configuration, including those devised by the technique called Space Syntax Analysis, provide useful variables that can be introduced as regressors. Such regressors offer interpretable information on space, behavior, and their interactions, that would otherwise be lost. We therefore consider a set of three configurational variables that represent different forms of centrality and that are thought to have influence on a wide range of human activities. We propose an innovative procedure to adapt these variables to most urban graphs and then, using data from a large area in the city of Genoa (Italy), we show that the three variables are well defined, consistent, noncollinear indicators, with evident spatial meanings. Then we build two sets of Hierarchical Bayesian count models of different urban crime types (“property crime” and “arson and criminal damage”) around some known covariates of crime and we show that the overall quality of the models is improved (with the size of improvement depending on the type of crime) when the three configurational variables are included. Furthermore, we show that what the three variables explain of the overall variability of crime is a sizeable part of what would be the spatial error term of a traditional spatial model of urban crime. While the configurational variables alone cannot provide a goodness of fit as high as the one obtained with a generic spatial term, they have a relevant role for the interpretation of the results, which is ultimately the objective of urban crime modeling.
Measuring urban crime is a well-established practice for many police forces, local governments and public administrations all over the world. There seems to be, however, a large gap between the rigorous academic definition of how crime indicators should be calculated and interpreted and the actual use that is made of them. Crime counts and rates are unadvisedly put out with little effort to clarify their different meaning; population-based crime rates remain a standard measure despite quite compelling arguments against the use of population as an offset for cross-sectional comparisons; most importantly, little attention seems to have been paid to the consequences of formulating preventive policies based on poorly defined and understood indicators. This issue looks even more evident with high-definition indicators that detail the levels of crime for very small statistical units (streets, street segments and blocks) with situational interventions in mind. After a review of the literature, we illustrate, through a case study, the different landscapes of urban safety and risk of crime when five different families of indicators are alternatively used: crime counts, population-based crime rates, risk-based crime rates, crime density and location quotients. We propose a multi-indicator approach to the ranking and prioritization of urban security issues based on partial order scalogram analysis by coordinates that presents substantial advantages as an operational tool for Public Administrations in a Smart Cities framework.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.