Understanding Place Function, Openness, and Crime

• In Event: Crime and Place: Concentrations of Crime at Place

Abstract

Land use studies have examined how the built environment affects routine activities, and also the opportunity for crime at proximal places like street segments (e.g., Weisburd et al. 2012), and pooled places like neighborhoods and census blocks (e.g., Taylor, 1995). This study builds upon this research to further understand the relationship among specific types of proprietary places (i.e., facilities - Eck, et al., 1997), the context in which these places are situated (i.e., proximal places), and crime. In this paper, we examine the possibility that particular proprietary place functions constrain place managers’ ability to control access and behaviors, and facilities with such constraints are more likely to promote crime within particular proximal place configurations.  Using police crime data in Henderson, Nevada, we explore (1) crime concentrations among different facility types, (2) the extent to which these crime concentrations differ based on place function or level of “openness” (i.e., owners ability/desire to control access), (3) the effect that high-crime, open places have on crime in nearby locations, and (4) whether different types of block configurations suppress or enhance the influence of high-crime, open places on proximal place crime patterns.

Authors

• Jonathan M. Birds, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

• Tamara D. Madensen, University of Nevada, Las Vegas