Abstract

Interpretations of two bodies of crime-place research conflict. Land use and crime studies claim particular facilities increase crime. Risky facilities studies show most places of a single type have little or no crime, but a few of that type have a great deal of crime. How can a facility be generally criminogenic and mostly safe? To resolve this conflict, we make use of the fact that a single owner can own multiple facilities and each owner may have consistent management practices in their facilities. We first replicate findings of earlier land use studies with crime and land parcel data from Cincinnati. Second, we cluster land parcels by property owners and re-estimate the land use and crime relationship. The links between land use and crime in the replication decline or disappear after clustering. Findings suggest owners’ place management influences crime at their places, thus resolving the conflict between the two bodies of research.

摘要

两种犯罪场所研究冲突的解释。土地使用和犯罪研究声称特定设施会增加犯罪。风险设施研究表明，大多数单一类型的地方很少或没有犯罪，但其中一些地方的犯罪率很高。一个设施如何通常是犯罪性的并且大部分是安全的？为了解决这一冲突，我们利用了一个所有者可以拥有多个设施并且每个所有者在其设施中可能具有一致的管理实践的事实。我们首先使用辛辛那提的犯罪和地块数据复制早期土地利用研究的结果。其次，我们按财产所有人对地块进行聚类，并重新估计土地使用和犯罪关系。复制中的土地利用与犯罪之间的联系在聚类后下降或消失。