Examining the extent to which repeat and near repeat patterns can prevent crime

Abstract

Purpose: The paper examines the extent and variation in the estimates to which crime can be prevented using patterns of repeats and near repeats, and whether hotspot analysis complements these patterns.Method: Crime data for four study areas in New Zealand are used to examine differences in the extent of burglary repeat and near repeat victimisation. Hotspots of burglary are also created to determine the extent to which burglary repeats and near repeats spatially intersect hotspots.Findings: The extent of repeats and near repeats vary, meaning there is variation in the estimated prevention benefits that repeat and near repeat patterns offer. In addition, at least half of the burglaries repeats and near repeats were not located within hotspots.Research limitations: The use of other techniques for examining crime concentration could be used to improve the research observations. 2 Practical implications: By showing that levels of repeats and near repeats vary, and the extent to which these observations coincide in hotspots offers practitioners a better means of determining whether repeat and near repeat patterns are reliable for informing crime prediction and crime prevention activities.Originality/value: The paper is the first known research study that explicitly measures the variation in the extent of repeats and near repeats and the spatial intersection of these patterns within crime hotspots. The results suggest that rather than considering the use of repeat and near repeat patterns as a superior method for predicting and preventing crime, value remains in using hotspot analysis for determining where crime is likely to occur, particularly when hotspot analysis emphasises other locations for resource targeting.3

Discovering spatial interaction patterns of near repeat crime by spatial association rules mining

“…The principle of the NRC is the Knox test, which calculate the difference of observed near repeat crime pairs in a spatio-temporal range with expected number by chance 27 . Recently, researchers try to examine the extent to which near repeat patterns can prevent crime 31,32 . They found that crime hotspot and near repeat crime are not co-located with each other and significant space-time clustering does not necessarily indicate an actionable near repeat problem.…”

The Foraging Perspective in Criminology: A Review of Research Literature

“…Sorg et al (2017) explicitly operationalise the three components of optimality modelling (decision, currency and constraints), which no other study does. Direct tests of foraging behaviour either measure the extent of spatio-temporal clustering of crime (Johnson and Bowers, 2004a;Chainey and Silva, 2016;Rey et al, 2012;Townsley and Oliveira, 2015;Chainey et al, 2018;Porter and Reich, 2012), or whether individual offenders tend to return to previously target areas (Bernasco et al, 2015;Porter and Reich, 2012;Hering and Bair, 2014). The distinction between both approaches follows from the type of data available, i.e.…”

“…The majority of studies rely on recorded crime data by law enforcement agencies or international organisations (Chainey and Silva, 2016;Braithwaite and Johnson, 2015;Johnson et al, 2009a;Johnson and Bowers, 2004a;Johnson and Bowers, 2004b;Rosser et al, 2017;Townsley and Oliveira, 2015;Youstin et al, 2011;Li et al, 2014;Nobles et al, 2016;Wang and Liu, 2017;Chainey et al, 2018;Gerstner, 2018;Rey et al, 2012;Glasner et al, 2018;Yu and Maxfield, 2013). In a number of studies data on cleared offenses were used (Wheeler, 2012;Bernasco et al, 2015;Hering and Bair, 2014;Johnson et al, 2009b;Porter and Reich, 2012), which allowed the researchers to link crime events to individual offenders.…”

“…Studies in this category predominantly focus on acquisitive crime types, such as maritime piracy (Townsley and Oliveira, 2015), or a combination of crime types such as Youstin et al (2011) who employed data on shootings, robbery and auto theft, while Hering and Bair (2014) include nonacquisitive crime (in this case, arson) in combination with acquisitive crime types (i.e., robbery, residential, vehicular and commercial burglary). However, the bulk of these studies direct their attention to (residential) burglary either exclusively (Bernasco et al, 2015;Chainey and Silva, 2016;Johnson and Bowers, 2004a;Johnson and Bowers, 2004b;Johnson et al, 2009a;Li et al, 2014;Rey et al, 2012;Rosser et al, 2017;Sidebottom, 2012;Pitcher and Johnson, 2011;Chainey et al, 2018;Glasner et al, 2018;Gerstner, 2018;Yu and Maxfield, 2013;Nobles et al, 2016) or in combination with other crime types (Porter and Reich, 2012;Wheeler, 2012;Johnson et al, 2009b;Hering and Bair, 2014). The study of Braithwaite and Johnson (2015) stands out because of its focus on terrorist insurgency.…”

“…The risk of victimisation is elevated following a prior burglary, though the levels of repeat and near-repeat victimisation is much lower compared to those found in Western studies. Chainey et al, 2018 New Zealand 2013 -2014…”