No abstract

Conventional methods used to identify crime hotspots at the small‐area scale are frequentist and employ data for one time period. Methodologically, these approaches are limited by an inability to overcome the small number problem, which occurs in spatiotemporal analysis at the small‐area level when crime and population counts for areas are low. The small number problem may lead to unstable risk estimates and unreliable results. Also, conventional approaches use only one data observation per area, providing limited information about the temporal processes influencing hotspots and how law enforcement resources should be allocated to manage crime change. Examining violent crime in the Regional Municipality of York, Ontario, for 2006 and 2007, this research illustrates a Bayesian spatiotemporal modeling approach that analyzes crime trend and identifies hotspots while addressing the small number problem and overcoming limitations of conventional frequentist methods. Specifically, this research tests for an overall trend of violent crime for the study region, determines area‐specific violent crime trends for small‐area units, and identifies hotspots based on crime trend from 2006 to 2007. Overall violent crime trend was found to be insignificant despite increasing area‐specific trends in the north and decreasing area‐specific trends in the southeast. Posterior probabilities of area‐specific trends greater than zero were mapped to identify hotspots, highlighting hotspots in the north of the study region. We discuss the conceptual differences between this Bayesian spatiotemporal method and conventional frequentist approaches as well as the effectiveness of this Bayesian spatiotemporal approach for identifying hotspots from a law enforcement perspective.

This paper adopts a Bayesian spatial random effect modelling approach to analyse the risk of domestic burglary in Cambridgeshire, England, at the census output area level (OA). The model, in the form of Binomial spatial logistic regression, integrates offence and offender based theories and takes into account unknown local risk factors (represented as unexplained spatial autocorrelation in the model). A score of 'proximity to offenders' was calibrated for each OA based on the number of likely offenders in the county, the OAs they reside, and their proximities. Our results indicate that areas that have a score higher than the average score were at higher risks of being burgled. Household occupied by non-couple and economically inactivity are positively associated confounders. Household occupied by owner is a negatively associated confounder. These confounders diminish the effect of high score of proximity to offenders, which, however, remains positively associated with the risk of burglary. Bayesian spatial random effect modelling, which adds to the traditional (nonspatial) regression model a spatial random effect term, stabilizes estimated risks and remarkably improves model fit and causation inference. Mapping the results of spatial random effect reveals locations of high risk of burglary after controlling for offender and socioeconomic factors. Limitations of the study and strategies to deter burglaries based on the results of spatial random effect modelling are discussed.

This article studies Bayesian hierarchical spatial modelling that monitors the changes of residual spatial pattern (structure) of the outcome variable for exploring unknown risk factors in small‐area analysis. Spatially structured random effects (SRE) and unstructured random effects (URE) terms added to the conventional logistic regression model take into account overdispersion and residual spatial structure, which if unaccounted for could cause incorrect identification of risk factors. Mapping and/or calculating the ratio of random effects that are spatially‐structured monitor the extent of residual spatial structure. The monitoring provides insights into identification of unknown covariates that have similar spatial structures to those of SRE. Adding such covariates to the model has the potential to diminish the residual spatial structure, until possibly all or most of the spatial structure can be explained. Risk factors identified are the added covariates that have statistically significant regression coefficients. We apply the methods to the analysis of domestic burglaries in Cambridgeshire, England. Small‐area analysis of crime where data often display apparent spatial structure would particularly benefit from the methodologies. We discuss the methodologies, their relevancy in our analysis of domestic burglaries, their limitations, and possible paths for future research.

This research explores associations between land use types and young offender residential location in the Regional Municipality of York, Ontario, Canada, at a small-area level. Employing a Bayesian spatial modelling approach, we found that after controlling for socio-economic risk factors, proportion of open area land use was positively associated, and road density negatively associated, with residential location of young offenders. Map decomposition, which visualises the contribution of each risk factor to total young offender risk, demonstrated that open area land use contributed more risk in rural areas than urban, and that road density contributed less risk in urban areas than rural. We propose explanations for these results focused on social disorganisation theory and accessibility to structured leisure activities and apply findings to inform law enforcement and land use planning. Results provide a criminological perspective not often considered in planning and urban studies research and contrast land use policies generally motivated by public health and the environment.