Distance Decay Reexamined

Abstract

The "journey to crime," or the study of the distance between an offender's residence and offense site, has been a subject of study within criminology f o r many years. Implications arising from such research touches the majority of criminological theories. An overriding conclusion from this line of research is that most crimes occur in relatively close proximity to the home of the offender. Termed the distance-decay function, a plot of the number of crimes that an offender commits decreases with increasing distance from the offender's residence. In a recent paper, Van Koppen and D e Keijser raise the concern that inferring individual distance decay from aggregate-level data may be inap- propriate. They assert that previous research reporting aggregated distance-decay functions conceals individual variations in the ranges of operation, which leads them to conclude that the distance-decay function is an artifact. W e d o not question the claim that researchers should not make inferences about individual behavior with data collected at the aggregate level. However, Van Koppen and De Keijser's analysis raises four important issues concerning (1) the interpretation of the ecological fallacy, (2) the assumption of linearity in offender movements,(3) the interpretation of geographic work on profiling, and (4) the assumption of random target selection within a delimited range of operation. Using both simulated and nonsimulated data, we present evidence that reaches vastly different conclusions from those reached by Van Koppen and D e Keijser. The theoretical implications of our analyses and possibilities for future research are addressed.

Dissipation and displacement of hotspots in reaction-diffusion models of crime

“…1C) (25)(26)(27). Offenders also preferentially select vulnerable targets, i.e., those with high associated risk Aðx; tÞ, usually to minimize the danger of capture or confrontation (16,17,28,29).…”

The effect of altitude and slope on the spatial patterning of burglary

“…The geographic expression of the principle of least effort is distance decay, which suggests a spatial pattern of criminal activity whereby most crimes are committed nearer rather than farther from the criminals" own homes (van Koppen & de Keijser, 1997). Not surprisingly, the notion that motivated offenders "diffuse" from where they live in order to commit crime in their awareness and activity space (presumably between their residence, place of work, and place of recreation) has generated a great deal of research, with varying results (see Bichler, Christie-Merrall, & Sechrest, 2011;Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999;Snook, 2004). It is within this awareness space however, that an offender will select a suitable target and that is where the physical geography of an area is likely to play a role.…”

Exploring Itinerant Crime Groups

“…Or are they just mobile in their criminal behaviour, travelling further when committing crimes but not travelling as a way of life at all? The latter would mean they conflict with reigning criminological theories such as distance decay theory (see for example Rattner and Portnov, 2007;Rengert et al, 1999;Van Koppen and De Keijser, 1997). Ponsaers (2004) opted for the first option, stating that criminal behaviour of these groups challenges distance decay theory mainly because these offenders have no fixed residences, making it hard to assess their offending patterns.…”