36 results
5 - A Review of Systematic Reviews in Policing
- from Part II - The Evidence for Evidence-Based Policing
- Edited by David Weisburd, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and George Mason University, Virginia, Tal Jonathan-Zamir, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Gali Perry, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Badi Hasisi, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
-
- Book:
- The Future of Evidence-Based Policing
- Published online:
- 01 June 2023
- Print publication:
- 15 June 2023, pp 85-106
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Systematic reviews in policing have become an increasingly common way for researchers to synthesize the state of research on programs, practices, and policies. Reviews utilize comprehensive and transparent search strategies to identify and summarize the evidence base for a particular topic, providing rigorous assessments of the state of scientific knowledge about policing strategies needed for evidence-based policing. This chapter summarizes findings and conclusions from systematic reviews on policing, building on an earlier paper that included 17 policing reviews completed between 2004 and 2015. In the current chapter, we identify updates to five of these reviews, and new reviews on 13 policing topics. Our “review of reviews” on 30 policing topics suggests a growth in primary research in policing, and in particular an increase in reviews on non-crime control topics. But we also suggest existing reviews provide insufficient “how to” guidance for implementing evidence-based strategies. We argue in concluding that scholars have succeeded in providing a “first generation” of studies that tell us whether general policing approaches are effective, but a much larger evidence based is needed for a “second generation” of systematic reviews that would provide specific guidance about choosing and implementing evidence-based practices in the field.
26 - Computational Modeling in Psychiatry
- from Part IV - Computational Modeling in Various Cognitive Fields
- Edited by Ron Sun, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Cognitive Sciences
- Published online:
- 21 April 2023
- Print publication:
- 11 May 2023, pp 862-889
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
While psychiatry has made great strides in recent decades toward integrating our increasing understanding of the biological bases of cognition, it nonetheless continues to suffer from imprecise diagnostics and blunt treatment options. Recent advances in computational neuroscience have the potential to address these issues, with a range of neural and cognitive models offering the possibility of a more precise psychiatric nosology with more targeted therapeutics. Here we review a variety of these models, with a special emphasis on their application to addiction, psychosis, anxiety disorders, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. We then close with a discussion of potential challenges in incorporating these insights and methods into a clinical setting.
Chapter 17 - Hawthorne and the American Magazine of Useful and Entertaining Knowledge
- from Part III - Hawthorne and the Literary Marketplace
-
- By David Cody
- Edited by Monika M. Elbert, Montclair State University, New Jersey
-
- Book:
- Nathaniel Hawthorne in Context
- Published online:
- 26 November 2018
- Print publication:
- 15 November 2018, pp 205-217
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Managing Herbicide Resistance: Listening to the Perspectives of Practitioners. Procedures for Conducting Listening Sessions and an Evaluation of the Process
- Jill Schroeder, Michael Barrett, David R. Shaw, Amy B. Asmus, Harold Coble, David Ervin, Raymond A. Jussaume, Jr., Micheal D. K. Owen, Ian Burke, Cody F. Creech, A. Stanley Culpepper, William S. Curran, Darrin M. Dodds, Todd A. Gaines, Jeffrey L. Gunsolus, Bradley D. Hanson, Prashant Jha, Annie E. Klodd, Andrew R. Kniss, Ramon G. Leon, Sandra McDonald, Don W. Morishita, Brian J. Schutte, Christy L. Sprague, Phillip W. Stahlman, Larry E. Steckel, Mark J. VanGessel
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 32 / Issue 4 / August 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 09 August 2018, pp. 489-497
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Seven half-day regional listening sessions were held between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide-resistance management. The objective of the listening sessions was to connect with stakeholders and hear their challenges and recommendations for addressing herbicide resistance. The coordinating team hired Strategic Conservation Solutions, LLC, to facilitate all the sessions. They and the coordinating team used in-person meetings, teleconferences, and email to communicate and coordinate the activities leading up to each regional listening session. The agenda was the same across all sessions and included small-group discussions followed by reporting to the full group for discussion. The planning process was the same across all the sessions, although the selection of venue, time of day, and stakeholder participants differed to accommodate the differences among regions. The listening-session format required a great deal of work and flexibility on the part of the coordinating team and regional coordinators. Overall, the participant evaluations from the sessions were positive, with participants expressing appreciation that they were asked for their thoughts on the subject of herbicide resistance. This paper details the methods and processes used to conduct these regional listening sessions and provides an assessment of the strengths and limitations of those processes.
Managing Wicked Herbicide-Resistance: Lessons from the Field
- Jill Schroeder, Michael Barrett, David R. Shaw, Amy B. Asmus, Harold Coble, David Ervin, Raymond A. Jussaume, Jr., Micheal D. K. Owen, Ian Burke, Cody F. Creech, A. Stanley Culpepper, William S. Curran, Darrin M. Dodds, Todd A. Gaines, Jeffrey L. Gunsolus, Bradley D. Hanson, Prashant Jha, Annie E. Klodd, Andrew R. Kniss, Ramon G. Leon, Sandra McDonald, Don W. Morishita, Brian J. Schutte, Christy L. Sprague, Phillip W. Stahlman, Larry E. Steckel, Mark J. VanGessel
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 32 / Issue 4 / August 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 09 August 2018, pp. 475-488
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Herbicide resistance is ‘wicked’ in nature; therefore, results of the many educational efforts to encourage diversification of weed control practices in the United States have been mixed. It is clear that we do not sufficiently understand the totality of the grassroots obstacles, concerns, challenges, and specific solutions needed for varied crop production systems. Weed management issues and solutions vary with such variables as management styles, regions, cropping systems, and available or affordable technologies. Therefore, to help the weed science community better understand the needs and ideas of those directly dealing with herbicide resistance, seven half-day regional listening sessions were held across the United States between December 2016 and April 2017 with groups of diverse stakeholders on the issues and potential solutions for herbicide resistance management. The major goals of the sessions were to gain an understanding of stakeholders and their goals and concerns related to herbicide resistance management, to become familiar with regional differences, and to identify decision maker needs to address herbicide resistance. The messages shared by listening-session participants could be summarized by six themes: we need new herbicides; there is no need for more regulation; there is a need for more education, especially for others who were not present; diversity is hard; the agricultural economy makes it difficult to make changes; and we are aware of herbicide resistance but are managing it. The authors concluded that more work is needed to bring a community-wide, interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexity of managing weeds within the context of the whole farm operation and for communicating the need to address herbicide resistance.
Special Considerations for Mass Violence Events in Senior Living Facilities: A Case Report on the Pinelake Health and Rehab Center Shooting
- Cody Martin, David Powell
-
- Journal:
- Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 11 / Issue 1 / February 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 February 2017, pp. 150-152
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The 2009 Pinelake Health and Rehab Center shooting in Carthage, North Carolina, presents a unique case study for examining the specific considerations for mass violence events in senior living facilities. A variety of factors, including reduced sensory perception, reduced mobility, and cognitive decline, may increase the vulnerability of the populations of senior living facilities during mass violence events. Management of response aspects such as evacuation, relocation, and reunification also require special consideration in the context of mass violence at senior living facilities. Better awareness of these vulnerabilities and response considerations can assist facility administrators and emergency managers when preparing for potential mass violence events at senior living facilities. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:150–152)
Utility of Hyperspectral Reflectance for Differentiating Soybean (Glycine max) and Six Weed Species
- Cody J. Gray, David R. Shaw, Lori M. Bruce
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 23 / Issue 1 / March 2009
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 108-119
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Reflectance data were subjected to a variety of analysis methods to determine the utility of hyperspectral reflectance for differentiating soybean, soil, and six weed species commonly found in Mississippi agricultural fields. Weed species evaluated were hemp sesbania, palmleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, sicklepod, and smallflower morningglory. Hyperspectral reflectance data were collected from mature plant leaves three times in 2002 and two times in 2003. Vegetation indices were calculated and subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) and linear discriminant analysis (LDA). The PCA, using vegetation indices, produced the poorest classification accuracies for the plant species studied, generally less than 50%, whereas LDA resulted in classification accuracies greater than those from PCA. Best spectral band combination (BSBC) provided the greatest classification accuracies, with all better than 80% for all data sets. The BSBC indicated three wavelength bands of interest for species discrimination in the short wavelength infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, which are not commonly used in current vegetation indices for species differentiation. These areas of interest were located from 1,445 to 1,475 nm, 2,030 to 2,090 nm, and 2,115 to 2,135 nm. The top 10 wavelengths determined by BSBC were then added to the vegetation indices and reanalyzed using PCA and LDA. Classification accuracies increased for all species when these wavelengths were added rather than using vegetation indices alone, suggesting greater crop and weed species differentiation can be obtained when using sensors that include these wavelength regions of the short wavelength infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Assessing the Reflective Characteristics of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Pitted Morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) Accessions
- Cody J. Gray, David R. Shaw, Jason A. Bond, Daniel O. Stephenson IV, Lawrence R. Oliver
-
- Journal:
- Weed Science / Volume 55 / Issue 4 / August 2007
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 293-298
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A hand-held hyperspectral radiometer was used to measure differences in reflectance characteristics of 24 Palmer amaranth and 15 pitted morningglory accessions collected from the central and southern United States. A hyperspectral reflectance reading was collected from two mature leaves at 24 and 27 d after emergence (DAE) for each accession. Two analysis techniques, linear discriminant analysis and best spectral-band combination (BSBC) analysis, were performed using various vegetation indices, spectral bands, and individual wavelengths. Differentiation of individual accessions was difficult. Palmer amaranth accession classification accuracies were < 50% using both analysis techniques, except one accession collected in South Carolina (63%), when pooled over data acquisition dates. Pitted morningglory accession classification accuracies were also generally < 50%. Classification accuracies were higher using BSBC analysis at 24 DAE; however, at 27 DAE only one accession resulted in classification accuracy > 30%. These results suggest there are only slight reflectance differences within Palmer amaranth and pitted morningglory accessions. These differences may not be predictable based upon accession origin because of the genetic diversity of Palmer amaranth and pitted morningglory. However, differentiation between Palmer amaranth and pitted morningglory was 100%. Thus, spectral sensors used to differentiate between Palmer amaranth and pitted morningglory do not need to be calibrated for a particular region of the United States, and differentiation between these two species can be made using reflectance characteristics.
Summary of the Snowmastodon Project Special Volume A high-elevation, multi-proxy biotic and environmental record of MIS 6–4 from the Ziegler Reservoir fossil site, Snowmass Village, Colorado, USA
- Ian M. Miller, Jeffrey S. Pigati, R. Scott Anderson, Kirk R. Johnson, Shannon A. Mahan, Thomas A. Ager, Richard G. Baker, Maarten Blaauw, Jordon Bright, Peter M. Brown, Bruce Bryant, Zachary T. Calamari, Paul E. Carrara, Michael D. Cherney, John R. Demboski, Scott A. Elias, Daniel C. Fisher, Harrison J. Gray, Danielle R. Haskett, Jeffrey S. Honke, Stephen T. Jackson, Gonzalo Jiménez-Moreno, Douglas Kline, Eric M. Leonard, Nathaniel A. Lifton, Carol Lucking, H. Gregory McDonald, Dane M. Miller, Daniel R. Muhs, Stephen E. Nash, Cody Newton, James B. Paces, Lesley Petrie, Mitchell A. Plummer, David F. Porinchu, Adam N. Rountrey, Eric Scott, Joseph J.W. Sertich, Saxon E. Sharpe, Gary L. Skipp, Laura E. Strickland, Richard K. Stucky, Robert S. Thompson, Jim Wilson
-
- Journal:
- Quaternary Research / Volume 82 / Issue 3 / November 2014
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 618-634
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In North America, terrestrial records of biodiversity and climate change that span Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage (MIS) 5 are rare. Where found, they provide insight into how the coupling of the ocean–atmosphere system is manifested in biotic and environmental records and how the biosphere responds to climate change. In 2010–2011, construction at Ziegler Reservoir near Snowmass Village, Colorado (USA) revealed a nearly continuous, lacustrine/wetland sedimentary sequence that preserved evidence of past plant communities between ~140 and 55 ka, including all of MIS 5. At an elevation of 2705 m, the Ziegler Reservoir fossil site also contained thousands of well-preserved bones of late Pleistocene megafauna, including mastodons, mammoths, ground sloths, horses, camels, deer, bison, black bear, coyotes, and bighorn sheep. In addition, the site contained more than 26,000 bones from at least 30 species of small animals including salamanders, otters, muskrats, minks, rabbits, beavers, frogs, lizards, snakes, fish, and birds. The combination of macro- and micro-vertebrates, invertebrates, terrestrial and aquatic plant macrofossils, a detailed pollen record, and a robust, directly dated stratigraphic framework shows that high-elevation ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado are climatically sensitive and varied dramatically throughout MIS 5.
Utility of Multispectral Imagery for Soybean and Weed Species Differentiation
- Cody J. Gray, David R. Shaw, Patrick D. Gerard, Lori M. Bruce
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 22 / Issue 4 / December 2008
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 713-718
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
An experiment was conducted to determine the utility of multispectral imagery for identifying soybean, bare soil, and six weed species commonly found in Mississippi. Weed species evaluated were hemp sesbania, palmleaf morningglory, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, sicklepod, and smallflower morningglory. Multispectral imagery was analyzed using supervised classification techniques based upon 2-class, 3-class, and 8-class systems. The 2-class system was designed to differentiate bare soil and vegetation. The 3-class system was used to differentiate bare soil, soybean, and weed species. Finally, the 8-class system was designed to differentiate bare soil, soybean, and all weed species independently. Soybean classification accuracies classified as vegetation for the 2-class system were greater than 95%, and bare soil classification accuracies were greater than 90%. In the 3-class system, soybean classification accuracies were 70% or greater. Classification of soybean decreased slightly in the 3-class system when compared to the 2-class system because of the 3-class system separating soybean plots from the weed plots, which was not done in the 2-class system. Weed classification accuracies increased as weed density or weeks after emergence (WAE) increased. The greatest weed classification accuracies were obtained once weed species were allowed to grow for 10 wk. Palmleaf morningglory and pitted morningglory classification accuracies were greater than 90% for 10 WAE using the 3-class system. Palmleaf morningglory and pitted morningglory at the highest densities of 6 plants/m2 produced the highest classification accuracies for the 8-class system once allowed to grow for 10 wk. All other weed species generally produced classification accuracies less than 50%, regardless of planting density. Thus, multispectral imagery has the potential for weed detection, especially when being used in a management system when individual weed species differentiation is not essential, as in the 2-class or 3-class system. However, weed detection was not obtained until 8 to 10 WAE, which is unacceptable in production agriculture. Therefore, more refined imagery acquisition with higher spatial and/or spectral resolution and more sophisticated analyses need to be further explored for this technology to be used early-season when it would be most valuable.
Notes
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 159-162
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contents
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Index
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 197-200
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
6 - Reducing Crime at High-Crime Places: Practice and Evidence
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 113-139
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The fact that crime and disorder are concentrated at a few places is interesting and deserves an explanation. It is also interesting that places show up in other criminological theories and in other disciplines. And it is useful to understand the methods for studying places. However, a primary reason we are interested in high-crime places is that it might be possible to do something about crime by addressing these places. We are convinced that focusing on places can substantially reduce crime and disorder. Our conviction is not a matter of faith, but is based on over twenty-five years of accumulating evidence.
This chapter summarizes the research evidence examining whether focusing on crime places reduces crime. We first discuss a broad range of place-based prevention strategies examined by Eck and Guerrette (2012). This review provides strong evidence for a place-based approach to crime prevention. We then turn to a specific form of place-based crime prevention – hot spots policing (Sherman and Weisburd 1995). Again, we have a strong body of evidence supporting a place-based approach. Having reviewed hot spots policing, we turn to the importance of place managers and third parties in controlling problem places. We then examine an extension of the third-party approach to argue that a place-based approach to crime may free crime control policy from the police monopoly. Then we describe how a place-based approach to crime could be incorporated in community corrections to improve probation and parole outcomes. Finally, we review the larger body of research on the potential threat of crime displacement, and its opposite, the diffusion of crime control benefits. Consistently, the evidence described in this chapter clearly shows the substantial utility of a place-based approach for reducing crime.
SITUATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION AT PLACES
In Chapter 3 we argued for the importance of social disorganization theories for understanding crime places. This is an area where basic research suggests promise (e.g., see Weisburd et al. 2012; Weisburd et al. 2014), but where there is little evidence of effectiveness of specific practices. Such evidence is beginning to be developed, but we can say little at this juncture. In contrast, the evidence regarding opportunity reduction and crime has grown systematically over the last few decades.
2 - The Concentration of Crime at Place
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 16-41
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Take a moment to imagine a crime occurring – perhaps a street robbery or a bag snatch. When you do this, it is difficult not to visualize the crime occurring in a particular setting or place. So, you might imagine a dark street corner with dim street lighting or seating in the outside area of a public bar. It seems intuitively sensible to analyze and understand crime at this unit of analysis – in other words, to investigate how criminals behave and crime concentrates at small microplaces. However, engaging in such microlevel analysis has tended to be a more recent criminological undertaking, and there are still many fruitful avenues to explore in terms of advancing both our knowledge and the sophistication of the methods that we use in this research area.
In this chapter, we raise and endeavor to answer a number of questions concerning the appropriate scale of analysis of criminological enquiry. To do this, we will start by defining what we mean by place and how this differs from other geographic concepts. Next, we highlight what has become the key catalyst for the criminology of place – the tremendous concentration of crime at microgeographic units of analysis. The strong and consistent concentration of crime at addresses, street segments, and other microgeographic units across cities is key to understanding why it is important to study the criminology of place and why it has such strong policy implications. We then turn to some additional statistical benefits of studying crime at microgeographic units that have to do with what is often termed “spatial interaction effects.” Finally, we examine problems that crime and place researchers will need to consider, and recommend some future directions for research exploring crime concentration at places.
PLACE AND SPACE
Geographic concepts are sometimes used in criminological research without a clear understanding of their meaning. Place and space are two such concepts. The subtle difference between them is important to keep in mind, as they can be a guide to establishing a carefully constructed study and influence the interpretation of findings. Furthermore, as will become apparent later in this chapter, a confusion of these concepts can mislead the reader in the interpretation of an argument. For example, it is important to keep in mind that place does not necessarily mean small units of analysis, nor does space necessarily refer to large areas.
Place Matters
- Criminology for the Twenty-First Century
- David Weisburd, John E. Eck, Anthony A. Braga, Cody W. Telep, Breanne Cave, Kate Bowers, Gerben Bruinsma, Charlotte Gill, Elizabeth R. Groff, Julie Hibdon, Joshua C. Hinkle, Shane D. Johnson, Brian Lawton, Cynthia Lum, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, George Rengert, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang
-
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016
-
Over the last two decades, there has been increased interest in the distribution of crime and other antisocial behavior at lower levels of geography. The focus on micro geography and its contribution to the understanding and prevention of crime has been called the 'criminology of place'. It pushes scholars to examine small geographic areas within cities, often as small as addresses or street segments, for their contribution to crime. Here, the authors describe what is known about crime and place, providing the most up-to-date and comprehensive review available. Place Matters shows that the study of criminology of place should be a central focus of criminology in the twenty-first century. It creates a tremendous opportunity for advancing our understanding of crime, and for addressing it. The book brings together eighteen top scholars in criminology and place to provide comprehensive research expanding across different themes.
4 - The Importance of Place in Mainstream Criminology and Related Fields: Influences and Lessons to be Learned
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 68-85
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter explores the importance of place in theory and research in both mainstream criminology and other disciplines. As we noted in earlier chapters, traditional criminology has focused primarily on understanding why people commit crime. This focus on criminality has generally inhibited study of microgeographies and their role in producing crime. However, more recently there has been a trend toward integrating microgeographic places into traditional theorizing about criminality. In the first part of the chapter we discuss this trend, focusing on some recent innovations in understanding criminality that have incorporated place-based perspectives. In the second part of the chapter we focus on how other disciplines have influenced thinking in this area, focusing in particular on contributions in psychology, economics, and public health. Finally, we explore how trends in other disciplines might influence future directions of study in the criminology of place.
THE GROWING ROLE OF MICROGEOGRAPHIC PLACES IN TRADITIONAL THEORIZING OF CRIMINALITY
As we noted in Chapter 1, places, at least at a macro level, played a key part in the development of criminology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But despite the role of place in crime in empirical study in Europe and theoretical development in the Chicago School through social disorganization theory, microgeographic places were mostly ignored. This was not because early criminologists failed to recognize the role of place in crime. Crime occurs in specific environments, and this was apparent to observers of the crime problem. Nonetheless, as we noted in Chapter 1, early criminologists did not see “crime places” – small discrete areas within communities – as a relevant focus of criminological study. This was the case, in part, because crime opportunities provided by places were assumed to be so numerous as to make concentration on specific places of little utility for theory or policy. What is the point of focusing theory or research on the opportunities offered by specific places if such opportunities can be found throughout the urban context?
Moreover, criminologists did not see the utility in focusing in on situational opportunities when criminal motivation was the key to understanding crime rates. Criminologists traditionally assumed that situational factors played a relatively minor role in explaining crime as compared with the “driving force of criminal dispositions” (Clarke and Felson 1993, 4; Trasler 1993).
3 - Theories of Crime and Place
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 42-67
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In the previous chapter, we showed that crime is concentrated at very small geographic units, substantially smaller than neighborhoods, and that these concentrations, on average, are relatively stable. This is true whether examining high- or low-crime neighborhoods. Although high-crime places do cluster, they seldom form a homogeneous block of high-crime places. Rather, interspersed within concentrations of high-crime places are many low- and modest-crime places.
Why is crime concentrated in a relatively small number of places? Standard criminology has not asked this question, largely because standard criminology focuses on criminality and implicitly assumes that the density of offenders explains crime density. Recognition that place characteristics matter is the starting point for this chapter. We look at two perspectives on crime place characteristics. We use the term “perspective” because each type of explanation is comprised of multiple theories linked by a common orientation. The first perspective arises from opportunity theories of crime. The second perspective arises from social disorganization theories of crime.
We begin by contrasting two ways of thinking about how a place becomes a crime hot spot and suggest that the process by which high-crime places evolve must involve place characteristics. In the next sections, we examine opportunity and social disorganization explanations. In the final section of the chapter, we examine possible ways researchers might link these two perspectives.
PROCESSES THAT CREATE CRIME PLACES
Before we look for explanations of why places become hot spots of crime it is important to consider two processes that might lead to such an outcome. Criminologists have generally proposed two generic models to account for the processes that lead to variation in place susceptibility to crime. One model suggests that places may start with reasonably similar risks of an initial criminal attack, but once attacked the risk of a subsequent attack on the place rises. Over time, places diverge in their crime risk, and consequently in their crime counts. This temporal contagion model is also known as a boost model (see Chapter 2) or a state-dependence model. It puts the emphasis on offenders’ willingness to return to a previously successful crime site (Johnson et al. 2007; Townsley et al. 2000). It suggests that irrespective of initial crime risk the occurrence of a crime will lead to changes in risk of crime at a place.
List of figures
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp vii-x
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
7 - Crime Places in the Criminological Imagination
- David Weisburd, George Mason University, Virginia, John E. Eck, University of Cincinnati, Anthony A. Braga, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Massachusetts, Cody W. Telep, Arizona State University, Breanne Cave, George Mason University, Virginia, Kate Bowers, University College London, Gerben Bruinsma, VU University Amsterdam, Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, Virginia, Elizabeth R. Groff, Temple University, Philadelphia, Julie Hibdon, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Joshua C. Hinkle, Georgia State University, Shane D. Johnson, University College London, Brian Lawton, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Cynthia Lum, George Mason University, Virginia, Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Temple University, Philadelphia, George Rengert, Temple University, Philadelphia, Travis Taniguchi, Sue-Ming Yang, George Mason University, Virginia
-
- Book:
- Place Matters
- Published online:
- 05 April 2016
- Print publication:
- 04 April 2016, pp 140-158
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
We began this book by noting that criminologists have largely ignored the involvement of microgeographic places in crime. Mainstream criminologists have focused on “who done it?” and not “where done it?” (Sherman 1995). At least for the last century the key inquiries of crime and the key prevention approaches have looked to doing something about criminal motivation (Sutherland 1947; Reiss 1981). Why people commit crime has been the main focus of criminology (Brantingham and Brantingham 1990; Weisburd 2002), and catching and processing offenders has been the main focus of crime prevention (Weisburd 2008). In contrast, the criminology of place (Sherman et al. 1989; Weisburd et al. 2012), which began to develop in the 1980s and 1990s (Brantingham and Brantingham 1981; 1984; Eck 1994; Eck and Weisburd 1995; Roncek and Bell 1981; Weisburd and Green 1995a), provides an alternative vision of how we can understand crime and the crime problem. Like the emergence of community criminology during the same period (Bursik 1988; Morenoff et al. 2001; Sampson 2008; Sampson et al. 1997) the criminology of place has offered a new set of mechanisms for crime study and a new set of methods for doing something about the crime problem.
Theory has been a driving force in criminological study, and as we note below, we think that more not less attention to theory is important for advancing the criminology of place. However, theories are about something and try to explain something. When we change the unit of analysis, we are changing the target for theory. The criminology of place proposes a new target. It focuses on places, rather than people. Its goal is to explain the criminal involvement of microgeographic units rather than trying to explain the criminal involvement of people. This does not mean we ignore the role of individuals in the crime problem. But it does mean that we begin our inquiries with the place and see the individuals as only one part of the crime equation at places.
We have illustrated in the preceding chapters the extent to which theory, method, and empirical evidence about crime places have been developing over the last three decades. In this concluding chapter, we want to draw from our review of what is known some key themes that we think our work has identified, and key questions that still need to be answered.