Advertisement

Spatial Regression Models in Criminology: Modeling Social Processes in the Spatial Weights Matrix

  • George E. Tita
  • Steven M. Radil
Chapter

Abstract

A decade ago, Jacqueline Cohen and George Tita served as guest editors for a special volume of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology (Vol 15, #4, 1999) that was dedicated to the study of the diffusion of homicide. In their Editor’s Introduction (Cohen and Tita 1999a), they concluded that the results presented in special volume,1 along with recent work by Morenoff and Sampson (1997), clearly demonstrated that the observed patterns of violence were consistent with patterns one might expect if violence does, in fact, diffuse over space. That is, levels of violence are not randomly distributed; instead, similar rates of violence cluster together in space (i.e., violence exhibits positive spatial autocorrelation.) Furthermore, a growing number of studies began to demonstrate that even after controlling for the ecological features known to be associated with high levels of crime (e.g., poverty, population density, male joblessness, female-headed households, etc), the clustering of high values could not be explained away. These early spatial studies of diffusion helped to establish the existence of an unobserved “neighborhood effect” that seemed to be responsible for spatially concentrated high-crime areas.

Keywords

Spatial Autocorrelation Spatial Dependence Homicide Rate Spatial Weight Matrix Spatial Error Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson E (1999) Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W. W. Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L (2002) Under the hood: issues in the specification and interpretation of spatial regression models. Agric Econ 27(3):247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anselin L (1995) Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geogr Anal 27(1):93–115Google Scholar
  5. Anselin L (1998) Exploratory spatial data analysis in a geocomputational environment. In: Longley P, Brooks S, McDonnell R, Macmillan B (eds) Geocomputation, a primer. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Anselin L (1999) Interactive techniques and exploratory spatial data analysis. In: Longley P, Goodchild M, Maguire D, Rhind D (eds) Geographical information systems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Anselin L (2006) Spatial econometrics. In: Mills TC, Patterson K (eds) Palgrave handbook of econometrics: volume 1, econometric theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 901–941Google Scholar
  8. Anselin L, Griffiths E, Tita G (2008) Crime mapping and hot spot analysis. In: Wortley R, Mazerolle L (eds) Environmental criminology and crime analysis Willan Publishing, UK, pp 97–116Google Scholar
  9. Baller R, Anselin L, Messner S, Deane G, Hawkins D (2001) Structural covariates of U.S. county homicide rates: incorporating spatial effects. Criminology 39(3):561–590Google Scholar
  10. Blau J, Blau P (1982) Cost of inequality: metropolitan structure and violent crime journal. Am Sociol Rev 47(1): 114–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blumstein Ad (1995) Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. J Crim Law Criminol 86:10–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blumstein A, Cork D (1996) Linking gun availability to youth gun violence. Law Contemp Probl 59(1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blumstein A, Rosenfeld R (1998) Explaining recent trends in us homicide rates. J Crim Law Criminol 88:1175–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1981) Environmental criminology. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  15. Burt R (1987) Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. Am J Sociol 92:1287–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cliff AD, Ord JK (1973) Spatial autocorrelation. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Cliff AD, Ord JK (1981) Spatial processes, models, and applications. Pion, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen J, Tita G (1999a) Editors’ introduction. J Quant Criminol 15(4):373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen J, Tita G (1999b) Diffusion in homicide: exploring a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes. J Quant Criminol 15(4):451–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cohen J, Cork D, Engberg J, Tita G (1998) The role of drug markets and gangs in local homicide rates. Homicide Stud 2:241–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coleman J, Katz E, Menzel H (1966) Medical innovation: a diffusion study. Bobbs-Merrill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Cork D (1999) Examining space–time interaction in city-level homicide data: crack markets and the diffusion of guns among youth. J Quant Criminol 15(4):379–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Decker S (1996) Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Q 13:243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doreian P (1980) Linear models with spatially distributed data: spatial disturbances or spatial effects? Sociol Methods Res 9:29–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doreian P, Hummon N (1976) Modeling social processes. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Elffers H (2003) Analyzing neighbourhood influence in criminology. J Neth Soc Stat Oper Res 57(3):347–367Google Scholar
  27. Florax R, Rey S (1995) The impacts of misspecified spatial interaction in linear regression models. In: Anselin L, Florax R (eds) New directions in spatial econometrics. Springer, Berlin, pp 111–135Google Scholar
  28. Fotheringham AS (1997) Trends in quantitative methods i: stressing the local. Prog Hum Geogr 21:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fotheringham AS, Charlton M, Brundson S (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Gehlke C, Biehl K (1934) Certain effects of grouping upon the size of the correlation coefficient in census tract material. J Am Stat Assoc 29:169–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Getis A, Ord JK (1992) The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr Anal 24:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goodchild MF (2004) GIScience, geography, form, and process Ann Assoc Am Geogr 94(4):709–714Google Scholar
  33. Goodchild MF, Anselin L, Appelbaum R Harthorn B (2000) Toward spatially integrated social science. Int Reg Sci Rev 23:139–159Google Scholar
  34. Gorman DM, Speer PW, Gruenewald PJ, Labouvie EW (2001) Spatial dynamics of alcohol availability, neighborhood structure and violent crime. J Stud Alcohol 62(5):628–636Google Scholar
  35. Grattet R, Jenness V, Curry T (1998) The homogenization and differentiation of ‘hate crime’ law in the U.S., 1978–1995: an analysis of innovation and diffusion in the criminalization of bigotry. Am Sociol Rev 63:286–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Griffith DA (1983) The boundary value problem in spatial statistical analysis. J Reg Sci 23:377–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Griffith DA (1996) Some guidelines for specifying the geographic weights matrix contained in the spatial statistical models. In: Arlinghaus SL (ed) Practical handbook of spatial statistics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 65–82Google Scholar
  38. Griffiths E, Chavez JM (2004) Communities, street guns, and homicide trajectories in Chicago, 1980–1995: merging methods for examining homicide trends across space and time. Criminology 42(4):941–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haining R (2003) Spatial data analysis: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haining R (2009) The special nature of spatial data. In: Fotheringham S, Rogerson PA (eds) The sage handbook of spatial analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  41. Hipp JR (2007) Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. Am Sociol Rev 72:659–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hipp J, Tita G, Boggess L (2009) Inter- and intra-group interactions: the case of everyday violent crime as an expression of group conflict or social disorganization. Criminology 47(2):521–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. King G (1997) A solution to the ecological inference problem: reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  44. Klein M (1995) The American street gang: its nature, prevalence and control. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Kubrin CE, Stewart EA (2006) Predicting who reoffends: the neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology 44:165–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Land KC, Deane G (1992) On the large-sample estimation of regression models with spatial or network effects terms: a two-stage least-squares approach. In: Marsden P (ed) Sociological methodology 1992 Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 221–248Google Scholar
  47. Leenders R (2002) Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: constructing the weight matrix. Soc Networks 24:21–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Loftin C (1986) Assultive violence as a contagious process. Bull N Y Acad Med 62:550–555Google Scholar
  49. Marsden PV, Friedkin NE (1993) Network studies of social influence. Sociol Methods Res 22:125–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook J (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann Rev Sociol 27:415–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mears D, Bhati A (2006) No community is an island: the effects of resource deprivation on urban violence in spatially and socially proximate communities. Criminology 44(3):509–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mencken FC, Barnett C (1999) Murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, and spatial autocorrelation in mid-south counties. J Quant Criminol 15(4):407–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Messner SF, Anselin L (2004) Spatial analyses of homicide with areal data. In: Goodchild MF, Janelle DG (eds) Spatially integrated social science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 127–144Google Scholar
  54. Messner SF, Anselin L, Baller RD, Hawkins DF, Deane G, Tolnay SE (1999) The spatial patterning of county homicide rates: an application of exploratory spatial data analysis. J Quant Criminol 15(4):423–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Moore J (1985) Isolation and stigmatization in the development of an underclass: the case of Chicano gangs in east Los Angeles. Soc Probl 33:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore J (1991) Going down to the barrio: homeboys and homegirls in change. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  57. Morenoff J, Sampson RJ (1997) Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990. Soc Forces 76(1):31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morenoff J, Sampson RJ, Raudenbush S (2001) Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology 39:517–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morenoff J. (2003) Neighborhood mechanisms and the spatial dynamics of birth weight. Am J Sociol 108:976–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Loughlin J (2003) Spatial analysis in political geography. In: Agnew JA, Mitchell K, Tuathail GÓ (eds) A companion to political geography. Blackwell Pub, Malden, MA, pp 30–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Openshaw S (1996) Developing GIS-relevant zone-based spatial analysis methods. In: Longley P, Batty M (eds) Spatial analysis: modeling in a GIS environment. Wiley, New York, pp 55–73Google Scholar
  62. Ord JK (1975) Estimation methods for models of spatial interaction. J Am Stat Assoc 70:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ord JK, Getis A (1995) Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: distributional issues and an application. Geogr Anal 27:286–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Radil S, Flint C, Tita G (2010) Spatializing social networks: geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality, and violence in Los Angeles. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 99(2) ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  65. Robinson W (1950) Ecological correlation and the behavior of individuals. Am Sociol Rev 15:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rogers E (1983) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  67. Rosenfeld R, Bray TM, Egley A (1999) Facilitating violence: a comparison of gang-motivated, gang-affiliated, and nongang youth homicides. J Quant Criminol, 15(4):494–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sampson R (2008) “After school” Chicago: space and the city. Urban Geogr 29(2):127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sampson R, Sharkey P (2008) Neighborhood selection and the social reproduction of concentrated racial inequality. Demography 45(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sampson R, Morenoff J, Gannon-Rowley T (2002) Assessing neighborhood effects: Social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol 28:443–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith WR, Frazee SG, Davison EL (2000) Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology 38:489–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tita G, Radil S, Flint C (2009) Modeling the spatial distribution of crime through contiguity, social influence, and status. In 2009 Crime and Place Conference, Manassas, VA, April 22, 2009Google Scholar
  73. Tita G, Cohen J, Engberg J (2005) An ecological study of the location of gang ‘set space’. Soc Probl 52:272–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tita G, Greenbaum R (2008) Crime, neighborhoods and units of analysis: putting space in its Place. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. Springer, New York, pp 145–170Google Scholar
  75. Tobler WR (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the detroit region. Econ Geogr 46:234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ward MD, Gleditsch K (2008) Spatial regression models. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  77. Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) (2008) Putting crime in its place: units of analysis in spatial crime research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • George E. Tita
    • 1
  • Steven M. Radil
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations