Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
DOI 10.1186/s40163-017-0069-x
Open Access
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
How concentrated is crime at places? A
systematic review from 1970 to 2015
YongJei Lee1, John E. Eck2*, SooHyun O2 and Natalie N. Martinez2
Abstract
Background: Despite the increasing awareness and interests about the importance of crime concentration at places,
scholars have not comprehensively synthesized the body of evidence related to this thesis. We conduct a systematic
review and meta-analysis of the evidence that crime is concentrated among places.
Methods: We identified 44 studies that empirically examined crime concentration at place and provided quantitative
information sufficient for analysis. We organized data using visual binning and fitted logarithmic curves to the median
values of the bins. We examine concentration in two conditions: when all places are studied (prevalence), and when
only places with at least one crime are studied (frequency).
Results: We find that crime is concentrated at a relatively few places in both conditions. We also compared concentration for calls for services to reported crime incidents. Calls for services appear more concentrated than crime at
places. Because there are several ways place is defined, we compared different units of analysis. Crime is more concentrated at addresses than other units, including street segments. We compared crime concentration over time and
found less concentration in 2000s compared to 1980s and 1990s. We also compared crime concentration between
U.S. and non-U.S. countries and found more concentration in U.S. Finally, violent crime is more concentrated than
property crime.
Conclusions: Though we systematically reviewed a comprehensive list of studies, summarizing this literature is
problematic. Not only should more systematic reviews be conducted as more research becomes available, but future
inquiries should examine other ways of summarizing these studies that could challenge our findings.
Keywords: Concentration of crime, Place, Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Visual binning
Background
At the end of the 1980s, Sherman et al. (1989) argued that
a small proportion of addresses in a city were the sites of
most crime, and that focusing police resources on these
high-crime addresses would be beneicial for crime prevention. heir inluential indings opened a new avenue
for researchers and practitioners, since most past studies
of the geography of crime had focused on neighborhoods
or larger areas. Shortly after, Spelman and Eck (1989)
compared the concentration of crime among places,
ofenders, and victims, and suggested that crime is more
likely to concentrate at places rather than ofenders or
*Correspondence: john.eck@uc.edu
2
School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221,
USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
victims. Since the late 1980s, followers of this line of
research have provided empirical evidence of place concentration using various measures of crime, focusing on
diferent crime places and geographic units of analysis,
and employing diferent time windows of the dataset.
For example, Weisburd and his coauthors (2004) found
that the crime reduction in Seattle during the 1990s was
mostly due to crime declines in a small group of street
segments. In a series of meta-analysis of crime hot spots
patrol studies, Braga (2001, 2005) and Braga et al. (2014)
provided more evidence of crime concentration at places,
and that when police focus their patrols at these highcrime locations they can create signiicant reductions
in crime. he concentration of crime is so common that
Wilcox and Eck (2011) call it the “Iron Law of Crime
Concentration,” and Weisburd (2015) calls it the “Law of
© The Author(s) 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Crime Concentration.” In fact, Weisburd claims that this
concentration is so regular that a given percent of the
worst crime alicted places account for a ixed percent of
the crime in almost every city.
Despite this increasing awareness and interests about
the importance of crime concentration at places, scholars
have not comprehensively synthesized the body of evidence related to this thesis. Such a review is important
because it can help determine if crime concentration is as
lawlike as Weisburd suggests (2015).1 A review would
also provide evidence for how much variation in concentration there is in the literature. And if there is considerable variation, the types of factors that might inluence the
variation in crime concentration would be fruitful for
future place-based crime research to be considered.
Finally, as “place” is deined in several ways—as addresses
(e.g., inside bars or business stores), as street segments
(both sides of a street from corner to corner), and as tiny
areas (grid cells of several hundred feet on a side)2—a
systematic review could help indicate whether this operationalization of “place” inluences the concentration of
crime.
In this paper, we describe a systematic review and
meta-analysis of the literature describing how concentrated crime is in small geographic units known as
places.3 In the next section, we describe the literature
search strategy we followed: the types of literature we
included in our review, how we extracted data from the
literature, and how we synthesized various indings using
the visual binning method. he third section provides the
results of our analysis of this literature. Here we give estimates of the level of concentration of crime at places and
examine how this changes as methods change and as
crime types are varied. he last section draws conclusions from these results and discusses possible future
research and policy implications.
Methods
Criteria for inclusion and exclusion
Our goal is to determine the concentration of crime at
places based on the research that has been conducted.
We need quantitative information that can describe the
distribution of crime across a sample of places. To
Page 2 of 16
achieve this, we require speciic information describing
crime at place concentration, which are relected in our
three criteria for inclusion in our analysis. First, the study
must be written in English.4 Second, the study had to
include empirical data to draw their indings, so we can
either access to the study’s original dataset or retrieve relevant statistics from the study. hird, the study must provide statistics on the percentage of places (X percent) in
its sample and percentage of crimes (Y percent) associated with those places. We use the combinations of these
X–Y percentages as ordered pairs to plot points on the
concentration curve. For example, Sherman and his
coauthors (1989 provided a cumulative distribution of
323,979 calls to police over all 115,000 addresses (and
intersections) in Minneapolis over 1 year. In Table 1 of
their study, each of the 16 rows provides the percentage
of crime explained by the percentage of addresses, thus it
is possible to retrieve and record these 16 X–Y points
into our database.
Since insuicient X–Y points may not reliably represent
the distribution of crime across the geographic units of
the study—a single X–Y point does not reliably represent
the place-crime distribution of the study—we applied
another criteria to ilter out the studies with insuicient
X–Y points. Speciically, in addition to the points where
the percent of places is 100% or the percent of crimes
is 100%, relevant studies must supply at least two X–Y
ordered pairs to represent the place–crime distribution
of the data.
Data sources and search strategy
We searched empirical studies addressing the concentration of crime at places in journal articles, academic
institutions, crime analysts, and industry. We searched
for relevant literature in ProQuest, EBSCO, Google
Scholar, and Criminal Justice Abstract, using the keywords as follows: Hot spot, Crime place, Crime clusters,
Crime displacement, Place-oriented interventions, High
crime areas, and High crime locations.5 We identiied
further articles and reports from the bibliography sections of relevant studies, comments, and books. If we
found new keywords (e.g., problematic places, risky
facility, place based crime) during this process, we conducted another round of online search using the new
1
Weisburd (2015a, b) claims the Law of crime concentration at place which
suggests that certain percentage of places accounts for a ixed percentage of
crime (e.g., 5% of street segments accounts for 50% of crime across diferent
cities.).
2
he geographic units of analysis we examined here are based on the U.S.
street-line system.
3
hese places include both propriety places (e.g., land parcels with a single
legal owner. Typically addresses) and proximal places (short strips of adjacent proprietary places. Typically, these are street segments.) suggested by
Madensen and Eck (2008).
4
Given the history of crime and geography in criminology (e.g., Quetelet), searching and reviewing studies written in English only may limit our
understanding on the concentration of crime phenomenon. We encourage
future studies to consider reviewing non-English written articles in this line
of research.
5
Here, we conirm that the studies that can be retrieved by using other
sub-keywords, such as micro-place and micro area, were already retrieved
by using these major keywords.
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Page 3 of 16
Table 1 Characteristics of the studies and X–Y pairs identiied and analyzed
Characteristics
Prevalence
Frequency
Number
of studies
Number of
X–Y pairs
Number
of studies
Number of
X–Y pairs
1971–1979
1
9
1
8
1980–1989
3
83
3
74
Coding protocol
1990–1999
3
35
3
32
2000–2009
6
100
4
77
2010–2015
13
201
8
119
Our comparative analysis of crime concentration at place
has no precedent in the literature. Conventional metaanalyses calculate a variety of statistics including t-statistics, estimated coeicients, standard errors, and
conidence intervals and then weight the data points to
compensate for uncertainty in the data (Mulrow and
Oxman 1997; Higgins and Green 2011). However,
because we used actual values of X–Y ordered pairs to
calculate the efect size between place and crime rather
than estimated coeicients (as is standard in meta-analysis), it is unclear if weights improve the validity of our
analysis. As our test of this indicated that weights were
not helpful, we did not use them.10
We recorded the raw values of X–Y ordered pairs
for each study in two diferent ways. We irst recorded
X–Y values based on the population of places. In Sherman et al. (1989), for example, 3.3% of all the addresses
in Minneapolis accounted for 50% crime and 50% of all
addresses accounted for all crimes, which indicates the
prevalence of crime for this city. So we adopted a term
‘prevalence’ to describe this type of X–Y points.
However, if the study only describes places with at least
one crime event, rather than entire population of places,
we calculated the X based on the number of geographic
units where crime had happened before. he value of this
approach is that it provides the information as to how
repeatedly a place sufers from crime. When we only use
data of this sort, we call this an analysis of crime
Year or report
Measures of crime
Crime incident
24
393
17
277
Calls for service
2
35
2
33
Address (and
intersection)
3
54
3
49
Household
8
127
9
119
Segment
13
196
5
105
Area (parks and
buffers)
1
12
–
–
Violent
6
55
4
25
Property
6
82
6
75
United States
17
233
9
124
Non-U.S.
9
195
10
186
Geographic unita
Type of crimeb
Country of dataset
Total
Studies analyzed 26
428
19
310
(Studies identified)
(489)
(20)
(316)
(44)
a
We dropped facility-speciic studies and their X–Y pairs in our analysis because
these studies were too narrowly focused on the subset of a population data (e.g.,
bars, business places)
b
Non-violent and non-property crime studies are not included in this category
because we could not categorize these types of crime (e.g., juvenile crime, calls
for services, and non-categorized crime)
keyword, which is an iterative search process rather
than a sequential process. hough we identiied a number of studies that examined speciic facilities (Eck et al.
2007) we did not include them in this study as these
studies are unlike most of the relevant literature: they
focus on a single type of place (e.g., only bars, or only
apartment buildings) whereas most place studies examine heterogeneous places.6 We presented an early version of this study at the 2015 Environmental
Criminology and Crime Analysis international symposium in Christchurch, New Zealand and at the 71st
6
Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology at Washington, DC and asked attendees if they
knew of any gaps in our literature.7
Finally, we identiied 44 studies with one or more X–Y
points. his yielded 489 X–Y ordered pair points.8 But
only 26 studies had two or more ordered pairs, so we
analyzed the 428 points from these studies.9
We only excluded the studies that had focused on the homogeneous
type of facility. If a study included various types of facility as a subset of
street address places, we included it in our review study.
7
Given these limited databases and keywords we employed in this review
study, there is a possibility that we may have missed some studies that
contain relevant information. herefore, future researchers who are interested in and planning to replicate this review study may want to include
more comprehensive list of databases and keywords.
8
We marked these studies with small cross symbol (†) in the References.
9
We marked these studies with small asterisk symbol (*) in the References.
10
We tested whether any signiicant diference would be found by weighting X–Y points by the study’s sample size (i.e., the number of places that
each study had used to conduct statistical analyses). We used the study’s
sample size (w) to weight Y value of each point within each bin (i), then
y i) to represent the weighted central
calculated the weighted median (w
tendency of each bin. We did not ind any substantiate diference in the
indings with weighted points compared to the indings with un-weighted
points (see Appendix 1).
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
“frequency”. Because frequency ordered pairs were only
available for some studies, we calculated both types of
X–Y points and recorded them in our database when it
was possible.11
We coded the year of publication of the studies we
reviewed. Between 1970 to 2015, the number of studies
we reviewed has doubled for every decade. We also
coded the geographic unit of analysis (e.g., address, street
segment, block, block-group, census tract, neighborhood,
county),12 measures of crime (e.g., calls for service, incident report, survey incident), and types of crime. Table 1
shows the summary characteristics of the studies we
reviewed in this paper.
Synthesis of evidence
In order to answer the question “how crime is concentrated (or distributed) among places”, we estimate the
cumulative distribution of crime using visual binning
tool in SPSS 21. Each bin on the horizontal axis represents a 1% interval over the range from 0 to 100% of
the places arrayed from places with the most crimes to
places with zero crimes (i.e., the irst bin contains the
most crime alicted 1% of the places and the last bin
contains 1% of the places, all of which have no crimes
in the prevalence data). We then calculate the median
values of Y for each bin. We used this technique for two
speciic reasons. First, we assumed that Y values within
each 1% range bin on the horizontal axis vary, so we
needed a measure of the central tendency of each 1%
bin. Second, we chose the median as a representative
statistic for each bin to remedy possibly skewed distributions of Y values in each bin. Figure 1 summarizes
our visual binning process to draw cumulative distribution curves.
After a tabulation of median values of each bin, we
estimate the cumulative curve by interpolating the
median values. One can use various equation functions
to it the cumulative curve through these median points.
We used the logarithmic and the power law functions
as possible candidates to it our lines. We used these
since both functions are mathematically connected
with each other: power-law behavior in either nature or
11
Just to clarify, the term ‘prevalence’ is connected to ’incidence’ which
measures the number of crimes per unit of population (Farrington 2015;
Rocque et al. 2015; Tillman 1987), while ‘frequency’ is connected to ’concentration’ which is the number of victimizations among victims (Osborn and
Tseloni 1998; Trickett et al. 1992; Trickett et al. 1995).
12
We coded the studies with block, block-group, census tract, neighborhood, and county in our database, even if these studies were not reviewed
after we iltered out the studies with a single X–Y paired order.
Page 4 of 16
social systems can be often transformed into a logarithmic scale for easier understanding on the phenomenon
(Newman 2005).
To determine which function would produce a better
it, we compared their R-squared. hough this statistic is
high for both functions, the R-squared for the logarithmic function is greater (see panel D in Fig. 1). herefore,
we used it to estimate the distribution curve between the
cumulative percentage of (binned) place and crime. We
selected only a single functional form to use throughout the analysis because we wanted to have a common
standard metric for our comparisons that was simple to
interpret. Further, as we anticipated comparing place
concentration to victim and ofender concentrations (see
Eck et al. in this issue) we did not want to introduce variation in functional form.
Results
We examine the distribution of crime across places using
both the prevalence and frequency data. hen we examine how concentration is inluenced by the way crime is
measured, the geographic unit of analysis, and the type
of crime.
Prevalence and frequency
We use 26 studies with 428 X–Y points to estimate the
prevalence curve, and 19 studies with 310 points to estimate the frequency curve. We it both lines through the
median values of each bin (using the logarithmic function) as illustrated in Fig. 2. he solid line is the estimated
distribution of crime among all places (prevalence), while
the shaded line is the estimated curve from places where
crime had happened before (frequency). he R-squared
values show that prevalence points are more widely dispersed around its line compared to frequency points, but
both models it well. In both cases, however, the itted
curve appears to be a better summary of the points at the
far left (roughly the top 10% of the places) than further
right. he frequency curve is a particularly poor it after
the top 50% of the places. his is unfortunate from the
point of view of summarizing the data, but from a practical perspective it probably is not critical. his is because
most applications of these data are concerned with the
very worst places, and the curves it the points well in
that range.
In the prevalence curve, top 10% of serious crime
places accounts for 63% of crime, while top 10% in the
frequency curve explains 43% of crime. his diference
in concentration is mostly, though not entirely, due to
the fact most places have no crime. he estimated coeficient of each curve shows how fast, on average, the
curve approaches the ceiling of the vertical axis
(Y = 100%) given marginal increase (1%) in the X
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Fig. 1 A transformation procedure from empirical raw X–Y ordered pairs to median values of each bin as effect size and curve estimation
Page 5 of 16
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Page 6 of 16
interpretation, and is an indicator that the logarithmic
function is less than ideal despite its better it.
hese results shed some light on Weisburd’s (2015)
conjecture, the Law of Crime Concentration—that a
ixed percent of the places will almost always be the
sites for a ixed large proportion of the crime. For both
the prevalence and frequency curves, the dispersion
of points around the itted curves is very small on the
left and wide on the right. So data it quite well in the
range of values for percent of places that are relevant
for Weisburd’s conjecture (e.g., below 10%). hough
these results are supportive, we must be cautious in
interpreting these data. he binning process we used
reduces the variation. So it is possible that this nice it
is due to our methods, rather than due to the law Weisburd imagines.
100
Cumulave percentage of crime
90
80
70
60
50
Prevalence y = 18.133ln(x) + 22.483
R² = 0.7246
40
Frequency y = 22.674ln(x) - 9.8549
R² = 0.9195
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulave percentage of places
Fig. 2 Estimated distributions of crime at place between prevalence
and frequency schema
Measures of crime
value.13 hough the estimated coeicient of the frequency curve is signiicantly greater than estimated
coeicient of the prevalence curve, prevalence curve
reaches to the vertical ceiling faster than the frequency
curve.14 his diference is primarily due to the intercept
values in each model. he intercept value of the prevalence curve is over three times greater than the absolute
value of the intercept of the frequency curve. he negative value of the frequency intercept has no theoretic
13
Suppose we subtract the second reduced form equation from the irst
one.
y + �y = β0 + β1 log(x + �x) + e
(1)
y = β0 + β1 logx + e
(2)
x
y = β1 log 1+
x
(3)
then,
where
x
1
≈
x
x
We can rewrite the Eq. (3) as,
1
y = β1
x
and multiplying bothside by 100
gives,
1
× 100 = β1 x
100 · y = β1
x
∴ y =
β1
x
100
β1
herefore, 1% increase in x will result in 100
percentage change in y.
14
In Appendix 3, we provide the estimated coeicients and summary statistics of all models speciications in this paper.
Since researchers have extensively used calls for services
(CFS) to police as a proxy for measuring crime (e.g.,
Sherman et al. 1989; Sherman 1995; Lum 2003; Weisburd
et al. 2006), we wanted to see if studies using crime incident data systematically displayed more or less concentration than studies using CFS data.
We estimate both prevalence and frequency curves
by diferent measures of crime. Among 26 studies we
reviewed, two studies used CFS to measure crime while
24 studies used crime incident data. he estimated curves
are shown in Fig. 3. CFS are more concentrated at place
than actual number of incidents. More speciically, the
estimated diference between CFS and crime incidents at
the 10% bin is about 10%. his diference increases when
comparing frequency curves. he worst 10% of the places
had 52% of CFS but only 40% of crime incidents.
hese consistent indings across prevalence and frequency schema raise two important points. First, on
average, CFS are more concentrated at place than crime
incidents. hus indings and results in the previous literature based on CFS as measures of crime may be biased
upward. Second, researchers who employed CFS as
measures of crime may have overlooked the fundamental
diference between the characteristics of CFS and crime.
Speciically, some researchers believe CFS is a good
proxy for crime since CFS occurs with greater frequency
(Andresen 2006; Phillips and Brown 1998). However,
CFS can include numerous non-crime events ranging
from requests from people sufering from mental illness,
reports of suspicious activity, vehicular traic incidents,
and so forth. Perhaps the diference between the two
curves could be due to a function of ‘social eicacy’—the
ability to deal with problems yourself. In Appendix 2, we
give an explanation about how CFS as a proxy for crime
could contaminate research and indings.
Page 7 of 16
100
100
90
90
80
80
Cumulative percentage of crime
Cumulative percentage of crime
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
70
60
50
y = 15.746ln(x) + 35.133
R² = 0.8002
40
y = 18.907ln(x) + 18.997
Incident
R² = 0.7295
CFS
30
70
60
50
CFS
40
Incident y = 23.111ln(x) - 12.993
30
20
20
10
10
y = 22.242ln(x) + 0.4663
R² = 0.8971
R² = 0.9102
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cumulave percentage of places (Prevalence)
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cumulave percentage of places (Frequency)
100
Fig. 3 Estimated distributions of crime at place between different measures of crime: CFS vs. incident
Geographic unit of analysis
he term “place” does not have a single deinition, and
has been operationalized in several ways: as an address, a
household, a street segment, or even an area.15 Do these
diferent interpretations of place inluence crime concentration, or are they interchangeable?
Our database of studies contained varying numbers
of studies using these diferent place units. We found 3
address studies (with 54 X–Y points), 8 household studies
(with 127 points), 13 segment studies (with 196 points)
and one area study (with 12 X–Y points). Figure 4 shows
that as the size of the place unit declines (area to address
and household) crime becomes more concentrated. If we
look at the most crime alicted 5% of the places, when
one looks at household or address data one inds about
55% of the crime being accounted for. he worst 5% of
the street segments, in contrast, account for around
42% of the crimes. And the worst 5% of the neighborhoods account for only around 20% of the crimes. hese
indings are consistent with the indings of Andresen
et al. (2016), Johnson (2010), and Steenbeek and Weisburd (2016). And they are consistent with the fact that
the bigger the area the more likely it will have at least
one crime in any given time period (if you were to place
a bet, you should put your money on any given household or address having no crime, but put your money on
all neighborhoods having at least one crime in the time
period of choice).
15
We include ‘area’ because it was a place including both park area and 50
feet bufer zone surrounding the park. he areal size of this area is greater
than street segment but much smaller than neighborhood or census tract.
When we look at the frequency curves (the single area
study did not provide information we could use to estimate a frequency curve) we see that households display
the least concentration and addresses the most, with segments in between. his suggests that given a irst crime,
addresses have a higher chance of a second or third event
than do segments or households. his is interesting. But
it might be due to the heterogeneity of addresses relative
to households, and even segments. Address data contains
a wide variety of diferent types of places—bar, school,
shopping, worship, and other facilities—where household data contains only residential facilities. Businesses
are more subject to repeat victimization than household
(Bowers et al. 1998). Since many street segments will be
mixed commercial residential, or completely commercial,
segments may have more crimes than the more homogeneous households. he address studies also contain a
heterogeneous set of places, thus increasing their concentration relative to households.
We do need to add this cautionary note. he address
frequency concentration is higher than household frequency concentration (Fig. 4), even though both units
seem to be similar conceptually. All of the household
studies collected crime data based on survey method,
while all of the address based studies used crimes
reported to the police. One possible diference is that
police address data might not distinguish among diferent households in the same apartment building, although
survey data does. Another possible diference is that
police data would be available for all apartments (lats)
in a building, although sample surveys would only draw
Page 8 of 16
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
60
Address
y = 18.028ln(x) + 29.401
R² = 0.8354
50
Household
y = 26.061ln(x) + 16.884
R² = 0.6448
40
Segment
y = 20.362ln(x) + 8.79
R² = 0.8841
30
Area
y = 28.284ln(x) - 28.165
R² = 0.994
Cumulative percentage of crime
Cumulative perentage of crime
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
70
60
50
Address
y = 18.028ln(x) + 29.401
R² = 0.8354
Segment
y = 22.342ln(x) - 5.4407
R² = 0.9658
40
30
20
20
10
10
Household y = 20.132ln(x) - 16.491
R² = 0.8512
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cumula ve percentage of places (Prevalence)
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cumula ve percentage of places (Frequency)
100
Fig. 4 Estimated distributions of crime at place among different geographic unit of analysis: address, household, segment, and area
data from a single household in the building. So even
allowing for under reporting of crime in police data,
survey data may underestimate crime concentration.
his diference may hint at the possibly that the source
of crime data could be a confounder in drawing conclusions from the concentration of crime studies. However,
whether we combined address and household data or
kept them separate, it is clear that crime is more concentrated at addresses than at street segments.
he fact that crime is more concentrated at the address
level than the segment level for both frequency and prevalence is important. One reason is that, on a segment,
many addresses will have no crimes. So, we conirm
that a smaller unit of analysis is better able to pinpoint
crime concentration (Weisburd et al. 2009a). his would
account for the prevalence diferences. he frequency differences suggest that it may not be just the large number
of addresses with zero crimes inside segments with at
least one crime that is producing the higher address concentration. It is quite possible that there are address level
processes that more eiciently concentrate crime.
Time period
We also examined the change in the concentration of
crime over time. We grouped the X–Y points into three
categories based on the year their study was published:
before 1990, 1990 to 1999, and after 1999. We chose
these three time periods because the decade of the 1990s
encompassed a dramatic drop in reported crime (Eck and
Maguire 2000; Farrell et al. 2011). hus, we have a period
before this drop, the period of the drop, and a period
after the steep drop. For the prevalence curve, four studies provided 92 X–Y points for the period before 1990,
three studies provided 35 X–Y points for the period from
1990 to 1999, and 19 studies provided 301 X–Y points
for the period after 1999. he prevalence curves in Fig. 5
show less concentration of crimes in 2000s compared to
two other periods. However, the prevalence curves for
irst two periods show that there is no signiicant diference in the concentration of crime at places. Speciically,
the worst 10% of places for the irst two periods account
for about 75% of the crime, while the worst 10% of the
places in the third period account for only 60% of crime.
his inding suggests that there is a substantive diference in the crime trend after 1999 relative to two other
periods: less concentration of crime at the same places in
addition to crime drop around 1990s.
For the frequency curve, four studies provided 82 X–Y
points for the irst period, three studies provided 32 X–Y
points for the second period, and 12 studies provided 196
X–Y points for the third period. he second graph on the
left in Fig. 5 shows no signiicant diference in the percentage of crime explained by the top 10% of the places
across diferent time periods. We can better explain this
by extrapolating the indings from the prevalence curve.
he fact that crime is more dispersed across diferent
places but the concentration did not change among the
crime place after 1999 hint at the possibility that the
probability of crime among crime places did not change
over the decades of time period.
Page 9 of 16
100
100
90
90
80
80
Cumulave percentage of crime
Cumulave percentage of crime
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
70
60
Before 1990
y = 21.356ln(x) + 23.656
R² = 0.722
50
1990 - 1999
y = 17.241ln(x) + 37.284
R² = 0.6562
2000 and later
y = 19.533ln(x) + 14.486
R² = 0.8066
40
30
70
60
50
y = 20.976ln(x) - 6.5211
R² = 0.7168
1990 - 1999
y = 21.284ln(x) - 8.354
R² = 0.9172
2000 and later
y = 22.74ln(x) - 9.6631
R² = 0.9106
30
20
20
10
10
0
Before 1990
40
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulave percentage of places (Prevalence)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulave percentage of places (Frequency)
Fig. 5 Estimated distributions of crime at places across different time periods: before 1990, from 1990 to 1999, and after 1999
U.S. vs. non‑U.S
We also examined the concentration of crime across
diferent countries. Because the majority of the studies we reviewed used crime data from the United States,
we dichotomized the studies as U.S. and non-U.S. For
the prevalence curve, 17 U.S. studies provided 233 X–Y
ordered pairs while nine non-U.S. studies provided 195
X–Y ordered pairs. Non-U.S. studies were mostly from
the United Kingdom, but there are two studies from
Israel and Turkey. he prevalence graph in Fig. 6 shows
that crime is more concentrated at a smaller proportion
of places in the U.S. he worst 10% of places in the U.S.
explained about 70% of crime whereas the same proportion accounted for about 58% of crime in non-U.S. studies. hough the diference between U.S. and non-U.S.
seems substantive, and more crimes are likely to occur
at the same place in U.S. compared to other countries,
this does not mean that the U.S. is safer in general or
that non-U.S. countries have a high prevalence of crime.
We cannot make a defensible conclusion based on these
indings without examining how these crime data were
recorded (or collected), which crime types were measured, or determining which country’s data among the
non-U.S. countries primarily inluenced this inding.
Further, comparing the R-squared values for the U.S.
and non-U.S. curves shows that there is more variation
in U.S. crime concentration. he interpretation of these
prevalence curves becomes clearer when we look at the
frequency curves.
For the frequency curve, nine U.S. studies provided 124
X–Y points and 10 non-U.S. studies provided 186 X–Y
points. he second graph in Fig. 6 shows that there is no
substantive diference in crime concentration between
the U.S. and non-U.S. countries. he R-squared values
for the U.S. and non-U.S. also show that both curves it
through the median points of each bin fairly well.
Findings from both prevalence and frequency curves
are interesting. Even though the U.S. curves are based
on crime data collected from a single country, these
curves show more variation around the itted lines compared to non-U.S. curves. hough we cannot provide a
deinitive answer for this, one possibility is that the variability across diferent states and cities in U.S. may have
increased the variance among the X–Y ordered pairs,
and this may have further increased the variance of the
median values of each bin.
Type of crime (violent vs. property)
Finally, we examine concentration for violent and property crime. Two graphs in Fig. 7 show how violent crime
and property crime is concentrated at places. For estimating the prevalence curve, six studies provide X–Y
points for both violent (55 X–Y points) and property (82
X–Y points) crime. Only one of these studies provides
two violent and two property X–Y points and ive studies provide either violent (53 X–Y points) or property (80
X–Y points) crime data, but not both. he igure shows
that there is a signiicant diference in crime concentration between violent crime and property crime. When
we look at the top 10% of the places, about 60% of violent crime was accounted for while over 70% of property
crime was accounted for. his is an odd inding. here are
Page 10 of 16
100
100
90
90
80
80
Cumulave percentage of crime
Cumulave percentage of crime
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
70
60
50
U.S.
y = 15.947ln(x) + 34.263
R² = 0.5659
40
Non U.S.
y = 20.762ln(x) + 10.177
R² = 0.8807
30
70
60
50
40
U.S.
y = 20.602ln(x) - 4.8458
R² = 0.8225
Non U.S.
y = 23.086ln(x) - 11.177
R² = 0.9157
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulave percentage of places (Prevalence)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cumulave percentage of places (Prevalence)
Fig. 6 Estimated distributions of crime at place between U.S. and non-U.S
many fewer violent crimes than property crimes. If these
crimes were evenly distributed, fewer places would have
violent crime than property crime (i.e., violent crime
would be more concentrated). he diferences between
these two curves, therefore, cannot be due to the higher
number places without property or without violent
crimes. So for these results to be interpretable, violent
crime should be less concentrated in frequency than
property crime.
Unfortunately, this explanation is not substantiated
when we look at the frequency curves: there is no meaningful diference in crime concentration between violent crime versus property crime. Four studies provide
25 violent crime X–Y points while six studies provide
75 property crime points. Both logarithmic curves passing through the median values of each bin show almost
the same marginal slope for every bin on the horizontal
axis. It seems that the small discrepancy between these
curves above 50% values on the horizontal axis is due to
the properties of logarithmic function but not to a statistical diference. his leaves us with a puzzle we cannot
solve with these data.
Limitations
he heterogeneity of the literature and the sheer scarcity
of studies found for particular categories in place concentration studies led to a number of limitation that are
important to bear in mind in interpreting our indings.
Most of these limitations have been alluded to in the previous sections, but warrant reiteration here.
First, though we collected a comprehensive list of studies, we may have omitted some studies relevant to this
line of research. his is because there are studies containing the relevant data, but describing place-crime
concentration were not the studies’ objectives. he concentration information in such studies was developed to
aid the research, and it appears in tables and appendices,
but the keywords we sought are not in the title, abstract,
or text. Consequently, we cannot claim to have found the
population of relevant studies. herefore, our synthesis of
these results should be regarded as suggestive rather than
conclusive. Readers of this review study should keep this
limitation in mind in interpreting the igures and tables.
Second, visual binning technique might reduce the
true variation of X–Y ordered pairs. Losing variations of
the raw data points would reduce the degree of freedom,
which would further lead to an incorrect estimation of
the itted line. Despite this potential limitation, we used
a median of Ys for each bin to represent the typicality of
the bin. Further, we did not ind any alternative metric
that could substitute this technique for aggregating X–Y
points for each bin.
hird, we did not weight our data nor X–Y ordered
pairs per study. However, as we did not ind any substantial diference in the indings by weighting X–Y pairs by
study’s sample size (see Appendix 1), we used the nonweighted data points for simplicity and parsimonious of
our review study.
Fourth, we used the logarithmic function throughout
the meta-analysis. Since we cannot log-transform zero
Page 11 of 16
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
60
y = 20.463ln(x) + 28.116
R² = 0.5816
Property Crime
50
Violent Crime
40
y = 19.8ln(x) + 17.227
R² = 0.7204
30
Percentage of cumulative crime
Percentage of cumulative crime
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
70
60
50
Property Crimey = 20.593ln(x) - 15.502
R² = 0.8202
40
Violent Crime y = 21.285ln(x) - 13.675
R² = 0.8719
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percentage of cumulave places (Prevalence)
100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Percentage of cumulave places (Frequency)
100
Fig. 7 Estimated distributions of crime at place between types of crime: violent crime vs. property crime
into an integer value, all curves in the igures are marginally away from the zero origin either vertically or horizontally. It is possible that diferent functions might apply
to diferent categories of place concentration, rather than
a simple log-transformed functional form itting universally (e.g., violent crime its one function while property
crime its another). However, we used a logarithmic function over all categories of place concentration because
in this irst efort to synthesize place studies, we wanted
to keep comparisons simple. Further, we were interested
in comparing concentration at places to concentration
among ofenders and victims (see Eck et al. in this issue)
and we had no theoretical or other a priori reason to use
diferent functional forms.
Last, indings in our review study are limited by the
populations researcher have examined with suicient frequency that we could make comparisons. For example,
we could not compare speciic crime type concentration
at places, other than using the broad categories of violent and property crimes. Overtime, perhaps researchers
will report detailed results that will allow more detailed
comparisons.
Discussion and conclusions
Based on our review, there is no doubt that crime is concentrated at a small number of places regardless of how
crime is measured, the geographic unit of analysis used,
or type of crime. his conclusion is not surprising given
previous research (Weisburd 2015). hough unsurprising, it is important, as this is the irst systematic review
and meta-analysis on the topic.
Although the concentration of crime at place is seemingly ubiquitous—we found no empirical study showing
a lack of concentration—the amount of concentration
varies. Some of this variation is due to measurement,
unit of analysis, and crime type. And concentration varies depending on whether one is examining all places,
regardless of crime experience (prevalence), or only those
places with one or more crimes (frequency). However,
the literature we have reviewed cannot fully support the
conclusion that there is a precise law of concentration: a
given percent of the worst alicted places account for a
ixed percent of the crime. Based on the estimated coeficients and intercepts of model speciications in this
review study, the percent of crime explained by a speciic
percent of place (e.g., 5, 10, and 20%) varies across various geographic units, crime types, and measures of crime
(see Appendix 3). It is only when we aggregate all studies that we ind evidence supporting a strong interpretation of Weisburd’s (2015) law of crime concentration. A
weaker version, that a relatively small proportion of all
places contain most crime is supported.
If there is a “law” of concentration, it describes the general shape of the distribution—that a relatively small proportion places account for a relatively large proportion
of crimes. Such a law would not guarantee, for example,
that the most crime ridden 5% of the places contain any
speciic percent of crime, except that these places would
have a lot more than 5%. his is consistent with Hipp
and Kim (2016) who reported that 5% of street segments
across 42 cities in southern California account for crime
at its range from 35 to 100%.
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Our indings that calls for services are more concentrated than crime incidents, and that property crime is
more concentrated than violent crime (for prevalence)
suggest that researchers should be careful about drawing conclusions from data aggregating diverse sets of
crimes and places. here is a tension between the theoretical demand that speciic types of crime be examined
separately (at least until it has been demonstrated that
they have the same pattern) and the pragmatic methods demands of examining a suiciently large number of
events that patterns can be detected. Large address-level
multi-year datasets may help alleviate this tension, but
they will not eliminate it. Perhaps the biggest advances
will not come from more data, and not even from better statistical methods, but from deeper and more precise
theories that explain crime concentration processes.
Our indings that crime is less concentrated at the top
10% of the worst places in 2000s suggest that measures
of crime preventions may have become more efective
in reducing crime prone places compared to 1980s and
1990s. A cross-national comparison of crime concentration also suggests that United States may have sufered
from high crime concentration compared to the places
in other countries. However, due to the variability of cities and states in the United States, it is diicult to conclude that all places in U.S. cities and states have higher
concentration of crime compared to Europe, Israel, and
Turkey.
Our inding that address-level concentration of crime is
higher than segment (or larger area) level concentration
suggests that greater attention to site speciic inluences
would be fruitful. Place management theory (Madensen
and Eck 2013) provides a launching point for such an
inquiry. his theory claims that the actions of property
owners in their management capacity block crime or create opportunity structures for crime. Understanding how
property owners react to crime thus becomes a central
line of inquiry, in contrast to examining how people in an
area invoke informal social controls, or fail to.
Our analysis of the crime at place literature also
detected several anomalies that deserve further enquiry.
First, though we would expect household data and
address level data to be similar in concentration, they
are not consistent in this regard. Household crime is
more concentrated than address level data when looking
Page 12 of 16
at prevalence but less concentrated when looking at
frequency. We ofered a possible explanation, but this
deserves more research. Second, property crime appears
more concentrated than violent crime for prevalence,
which is contrary to what we would expect. However, for
frequency their relative concentrations appear similar.
hese two curious indings may be due to the heterogeneity of the studies that we found. Place research is
relatively new, and the studies of crime and place have
followed a variety of lines of inquiry, using diferent
data, from diferent cities, and applying diferent ways
of examining their data. hough overall there are a large
number of crime and place studies, when looking at subtypes (e.g., studies of segments vs. studies of addresses,
or studies of property crime vs. studies pf violent crime)
the number of studies for each type declines considerably. And due to vagaries in how crime-place distributions
are reported, the number of X–Y points varies. All of this
suggests that summarizing this literature is problematic.
Not only should more systematic reviews be conducted
as more research becomes available, but future inquiries
should examine other ways of summarizing these studies
that could challenge our indings.
Authors’ contributions
This paper was conducted by a team. YL was the lead writer for this paper,
was the lead analyst, and provided expertise on places. JEE headed the team
and provided overall guidance and editorial assistance. SO and NNM provided
expertise on offenders and victims (respectively), assisted in the development
of the research methods, and provided editorial reviews. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Author details
1
School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO 80918,
USA. 2 School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
45221, USA.
Acknowledgements
To be added at the end of the review process.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. We are not even
sure readers have an interest in this research.
Availability of data and materials
Articles used in the systematic review are noted in the references. For other
information regarding data, please contact the lead author.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Does not apply. As a review of summary data from previously conducted
research, no humans (or their tissues) participated as subjects in this research.
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Page 13 of 16
Appendices
Appendix 1: Estimated distributions of crime at place
for prevalence and frequency schema: A comparison
of itted lines between un‑weighted and weighted X–Y
points
Appendix 2: A mathematical note addressing possible
measurement error problem by using CFS as a measures
of crime
Suppose a researcher is interested in the correlation
between crime and certain dependent variable (y), using
CFS as a proxy to crime. We can express the reduced
model as follows:
100
y = β0 + β1 CFS + µ
Cumulave percentage of crime
90
We can rewrite this as:
80
y = β0 + β1 CFS + (µ − β1 e),
70
where e (measurement error) = crime − CFS
Under
the
assumption that Cov(crime, µ) =
Cov crime, y = 0,
Cov(crime, y)
Cov(crime, e)
plim β̂1 =
= β1 −β1
= β1
Var(crime)
Var(crime)
60
50
Prevalence
y = 18.133ln(x) + 22.483
R² = 0.7246
40
y = 15.039ln(x) + 34.254
R² = 0.6558
Weighted
Prevalence
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(4)
However, if any variable (here, for example, fear of
crime) inside the error term (e) is correlated with the
proxy (here, CFS), then
Cumulave percentage of places
Cov(crime, e) = Cov(CFS + e, e) = Cov(CFS, e) + Var(e)
100
Because the covariance between CFS and error term
is no longer i.i.d., the numerator in the equation (a) will
not cancel out to 0, thus estimated beta (β̂1) will be always
biased or inconsistent. With this possible problem in
mind, we should be cautious at using CFS as an appropriate proxy to crime in research.
Cumulave percentage of crime
90
80
70
60
50
Frequency y = 22.674ln(x) - 9.8549
R² = 0.9195
40
Weighted
Frequency
30
Appendix 3: Estimated coeicients and summary statistics
of the models speciications in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
y = 23.467ln(x) - 14.433
R² = 0.8307
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Cumulave percentage of places
90
100
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Figure Number
Figure 2
Figure 3
Key
Number Number Constant
of
of (X,Y)
Studies Points
Beta
Prevalence
26
428
22.48
18.13
1.75
14.64
21.63
Frequency
19
310
−9.86
22.67
1.05
20.58
24.77
2
35
35.13
15.75
2.10
11.54
24
393
19.00
18.91
1.82
2
33
0.47
22.24
1.73
Incident (F)
17
277
−12.99
23.11
Address (P)
3
54
29.40
CFS (P)
Incident (P)
CFS (F)
Figure 4
Household (P)
Figure 7
Conidence
interval
t‑statistic
Percentage of crime
explained by
5%
10%
20%
50%
10.39
51.7
64.2
76.8
93.4
21.63
26.6
42.4
58.1
78.8
19.95
7.49
60.5
71.4
82.3
96.7
15.27
22.55
10.39
49.4
62.5
75.6
93.0
18.79
25.70
12.87
36.3
51.7
67.1
87.5
1.13
20.84
25.38
20.38
24.2
40.2
56.2
77.4
18.03
2.00
14.03
22.03
9.01
58.4
70.9
83.4
99.9
8
127
16.88
26.06
4.99
16.07
36.05
5.22
58.8
76.9
95.0
100.0
196
8.79
20.36
1.25
17.87
22.85
16.34
41.6
55.7
69.8
88.4
Area (P)
1
12
−28.17
28.28
1.10
26.09
30.48
25.74
17.4
37.0
56.6
82.5
Address (F)
3
49
1.17
21.09
1.66
17.77
24.41
12.71
35.1
49.7
64.3
83.7
Segment (F)
9
119
−5.44
22.34
0.70
20.94
23.74
31.86
30.5
46.0
61.5
82.0
Household (F)
5
105
−16.49
20.13
1.88
16.37
23.90
10.69
15.9
29.9
43.8
62.3
Before 1990 (P)
4
92
23.66
21.36
3.21
14.93
27.78
6.65
58.0
72.8
87.6
100.0
1990 to 1999 (P)
3
35
37.28
17.24
4.72
7.81
26.68
3.66
65.0
77.0
88.9
100.0
2000 and later (P)
19
301
14.49
19.53
1.53
16.47
22.60
12.75
45.9
59.5
73.0
90.9
4
82
−6.52
20.98
2.95
15.08
26.87
7.12
27.2
41.8
56.3
75.5
74.9
Before 1990 (F)
Figure 6
Std. error
13
Segment (P)
Figure 5
Page 14 of 16
1990 to 1999 (F)
3
32
−8.35
21.28
1.60
18.09
24.48
13.31
25.9
40.7
55.4
2000 and later (F)
12
196
−9.66
22.74
1.13
20.49
24.99
20.18
26.9
42.7
58.5
79.3
U.S. (P)
17
233
34.26
15.95
2.74
10.47
21.43
5.82
59.9
71.0
82.0
96.6
Non-U.S. (P)
9
195
10.18
20.76
1.37
18.02
23.51
15.13
43.6
58.0
72.4
91.4
U.S. (F)
9
124
−4.85
20.60
1.81
16.98
24.22
11.39
28.3
42.6
56.9
75.7
Non-U.S. (F)
10
186
−11.18
23.09
1.14
20.81
25.36
20.32
26.0
42.0
58.0
79.1
Violent (P)
6
55
17.23
19.80
3.19
13.43
26.17
6.22
49.1
62.8
76.5
94.7
Property (P)
6
82
28.12
20.463
4.64
11.19
29.74
4.41
61.0
75.2
89.4
100.0
Violent (F)
4
25
−13.68
21.285
2.36
16.58
26.00
9.04
20.6
35.3
50.1
69.6
Property (F)
6
75
−15.50
20.593
2.34
15.92
25.27
8.81
17.6
31.9
46.2
65.1
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Received: 17 February 2017 Accepted: 16 May 2017
References
†
Denotes a study we identified through keyword search. * Denotes a study
included in both the systematic review and meta-analysis
Andresen, M. A. (2006). A spatial analysis of crime in Vancouver, British Columbia: A synthesis of social disorganization and routine activity theory. The
Canadian Geographer, 50(4), 487–502.
Andresen, M. A., Linning, S. J., & Malleson, N. (2017). Crime at places and
spatial concentrations: Exploring the spatial stability of property crime
in Vancouver BC, 2003–2013. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33, 255.
doi:10.1007/s10940-016-9295-8.
Bowers, K. J., Hirschfield, A., & Johnson, S. D. (1998). Victimization revisited:
A case study of non-residential repeat burglary on Merseyside. British
Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 429–452.
Braga, A. A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 104–125.
Braga, A. A. (2005). Hot spots policing and crime prevention: A systematic
review of randomized controlled trials. Journal of experimental criminology, 1(3), 317–342.
*†Braga, A. A., Hureau, D. M., & Papachristos, A. V. (2011). The relevance of micro
places to citywide robbery trends: A longitudinal analysis of robbery
incidents at street corners and block faces in Boston. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 7–32.
Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2010). The concentration and
stability of gun violence at micro places in Boston, 1980–2008. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 26(1), 33–53.
*†Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot
spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663.
*†Braga, A. A., & Schnell, C. (2013). Evaluating place-based policing strategies lessons learned from the smart policing initiative in Boston. Police
Quarterly, 16(3), 339–357.
†
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D. L., Waring, E. J., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W., &
Gajewski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A
randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541–580.
†
Chainey, S., Tompson, L., & Uhlig, S. (2008). The utility of hotspot mapping for
predicting spatial patterns of crime. Security Journal, 21(1), 4–28.
Christenson, B. (2013). Assessing foreclosure and crime at street segments in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Doctoral dissertation), Southern
Illinois University, Carbondale.
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
*†Dario, L. M., Morrow, W. J., Wooditch, A., & Vickovic, S. G. (2015). The point
break effect: an examination of surf, crime, and transitory opportunities.
Criminal Justice Studies, 28(3), 257–279.
*†Duru, H. (2010). Crime on Turkish streetblocks: an examination of the effects of
high-schools, on-premise alcohol outlets, and coffeehouses (Doctoral dissertation), University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.
†
Eck, J. E., Clarke, R. V., & Guerette, R. T. (2007). Risky facilities: Crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. In G. Farrell,
K. J. Bowers, S. D. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime
prevention: Essays in honour of ken pease (Vol. 21, pp. 225–264). Monsey,
NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J. E., Lee, Y. J., SooHyun, O., & Martinez, N. N. (2016). Compared to what?
Estimating the relative concentration of crime at places using systematic
and other reviews.
Eck, J. E., & Maguire, E. R. (2000). Have changes in policing reduced violent
crime? An assessment of the evidence. In A. Blumstein & J. Wallman (Eds.),
The crime drop in America (pp. 207–265). Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Farrell, G., Tseloni, A., Mailley, J., & Tilley, N. (2011). The crime drop and the
security hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2),
147–175.
Farrington, D. P. (2015). Cross-national comparative research on criminal
careers, risk factors, crime and punishment. European Journal of Criminology, 12(4), 386–399.
†
Frank, R., Brantingham, P. L., & Farrell, G. (2012). Estimating the true rate of
repeat victimization from police recorded crime data: A study of burglary
in metro Vancouver 1. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal
Justice/La Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale, 54(4),
481–494.
†
Gorr, W. L., & Lee, Y. (2015). Early warning system for temporary crime hot
spots. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 25–47.
*†Groff, E., & McCord, E. S. (2012). The role of neighborhood parks as crime
generators. Security Journal, 25(1), 1–24.
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of
interventions: Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
†
* Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal
crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Hipp, J. R., & Kim, Y. A. (2016). Measuring crime concentration across cities
of varying sizes: Complications based on the spatial and temporal
scale employed. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. doi:10.1007/
s10940-016-9328-3.
†
Homel, R., & Clark, J. (1994). The prediction and prevention of violence in pubs
and clubs. Crime Prevention Studies, 3, 1–46.
†
Hope, T. (1985), Implementing crime prevention measures, Home Office
Research Study No. 86. London: Home Office.
Hope, T. (1995). The flux of victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 35(3),
327–342.
*†Johnson, S. D. (2008). Repeat burglary victimisation: A tale of two theories.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4(3), 215–240.
Johnson, S. D. (2010). A brief history of the analysis of crime concentration.
European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 21(4–5), 349–370.
†
Kennedy, D. M., Braga, A. A., & Piehl, A. M. (1997). The (un) known universe:
Mapping gangs and gang violence in Boston. In D. Weisburd & T. McEwen (Eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention.
†
* Kennedy, L. W., Caplan, J. M., & Piza, E. (2011). Risk clusters, hotspots, and spatial intelligence: risk terrain modeling as an algorithm for police resource
allocation strategies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(3), 339–362.
*†Lee, Y. J. & Eck, J. E. (2014) Analysis of crime concentration at street segment
level, Cincinnati 2009, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17172.91521.
*†Lloyd, S., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (1994). Preventing repeated domestic violence:
A demonstration project on Merseyside. London: Home Office Police
Research Group.
†
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1999). Hot spots of bus stop crime: The importance of
environmental attributes. Journal of the American Planning Association,
65(4), 395–411.
Lum, C. (2003). The spatial relationship between street-level drug activity and
violence. (Doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, College Park.
Page 15 of 16
*†Madensen, T. D., & Eck, J. E. (2008). Violence in bars: Exploring the impact of
place manager decision-making. Crime Prevention and Community Safety,
10(2), 111–125.
Madensen, T. D., & Eck, J. E. (2013). Crime places and place management. In F. T.
Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp.
554–578). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Martinez, N. N., Lee, Y. J., Eck J. E., & SooHyun O. (2016). Ravenous wolves revisited: A systematic review of offending concentration.
McGill, R., Tukey, J. W., & Larsen, W. A. (1978). Variations of box plots. The American Statistician, 32(1), 12–16.
†
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood
inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence.
Criminology, 39(3), 517–558.
Mulrow, C. D., & Oxman, A. (1997). How to conduct a cochrane systematic review:
Version 3.0.2. San Antonio: The Cochrane Collaboration.
*†Nelson, J. F. (1980). Multiple victimization in american cities—A statistical
analysis of rare events. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 870–891.
Newman, M. E. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323–351.
Osborn, D. R., & Tseloni, A. (1998). The distribution of household property
crimes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14(3), 307–330.
†
Pease, K., & Laycock, G. (1999). Revictimization, reducing the heat on hot victims
(pp. 1–6). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
*†Percy, S. L. (1980). Response time and citizen evaluation of police. Journal of
Police Science and Administration, 8(1), 75–86.
Phillips, C., & Brown, D. (1998). Perspectives on policing: Synopsis of recent
research. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies Management,
21(3), 562–568.
†
Ratcliffe, J. H., Taniguchi, T., Groff, E. R., & Wood, J. D. (2011). The Philadelphia
foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of police patrol
effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology, 49(3), 795–831.
†
Rephann, T. J. (2009). Rental housing and crime: the role of property ownership and management. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(2), 435–451.
Rocque, M., Posick, C., Marshall, I. H., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). A comparative,
cross-cultural criminal career analysis. European Journal of Criminology,
12(4), 40.
†
Schmid, C. F. (1960). Urban Crime Areas: Part II. American Sociological Review,
25(5), 655–678.
Sherman, L. W. (1995). Hot spots of crime and criminal careers of places. In J. E.
Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place, crime prevention studies (Vol. 4,
pp. 35–52). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
*†Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory
crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1),
27–56.
†
* Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D., & DeRiso, C. (1991). Predicting
domestic homicide: Prior police contact and gun threats. In M. Steinman
(Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 73–93). Newport: Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, Northern Kentucky University.
†
* Sidebottom, A. (2012). Repeat burglary victimization in Malawi and the
influence of housing type and area-level affluence. Security Journal, 25(3),
265–281.
†
Sidebottom, A., & Bowers, K. (2010). Bag theft in bars: An analysis of relative
risk, perceived risk and modus operandi. Security Journal, 23(3), 206–224.
SooHyun, O., Martinez, N. N., Lee, Y. J., & Eck, J. E. (2016). How concentrated is
crime among victims? A systematic review from 1977 to 2014.
†
Spelman, W. (1995). Criminal careers of public places. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd
(Eds.), Crime and place, crime prevention studies (Vol. 4, pp. 115–144).
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Spelman, W., & Eck, J. E. (1989). Sitting ducks, ravenous wolves and helping hands:
new approaches to urban policing. Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of
Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin.
Steenbeek, W., & Weisburd, D. (2016). Where the action is in crime? An examination of variability of crime across different spatial units in the Hague,
2001–2009. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(3), 449–469.
Tillman, R. (1987). The size of the “criminal population”: the prevalence and
incidence of adult arrest. Criminology, 25(3), 561–580.
*†Townsley, M., Homel, R., & Chaseling, J. (2000). Repeat burglary victimisation: Spatial and temporal patterns. Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 33(1), 37–63.
Lee et al. Crime Sci (2017) 6:6
Trickett, A., Ellingworth, D., Hope, T., & Pease, K. (1995). Crime victimization in
the eighties: changes in area and regional inequality. British Journal of
Criminology, 35(3), 343–359.
Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., Seymour, J., & Pease, K. (1992). What is different about
high crime areas? British Journal of Criminology, 32(1), 81–89.
*†Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2004). Burglary victimization
in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands: A crossnational comparative test of routine activities and lifestyle theories. British
Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 66–91.
*†Webb, B. (1994). Tackling repeat victimization: Getting it right. In National
board for crime prevention regional conferences.
*†Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of
place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157.
*†Weisburd, D., & Amram, S. (2014). The law of concentrations of crime
at place: the case of Tel Aviv-Jaffa. Police Practice and Research, 15(2),
101–114.
Weisburd, D., Bernasco, W., & Bruinsma, G. (Eds.). (2009a). Putting crime in its
place: Units of analysis in geographic criminology. New York: Springer.
Page 16 of 16
*†Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S.-M. (2004). Trajectories of crime
at places: A Longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle.
Criminology, 42(2), 283–321.
*†Weisburd, D. L., Groff, E., & Morris, N. (2011). Hot spots of juvenile crime: Findings from Seattle. Washington, District of Columbia: National Institute of
Justice.
†
Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S. M. (2014). Understanding and controlling
hot spots of crime: The importance of formal and informal social controls.
Prevention Science, 15(1), 31–43.
*†Weisburd, D., Morris, N. A., & Groff, E. R. (2009b). Hot spots of juvenile crime:
A longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle,
Washington. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(4), 443–467.
Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C., & Gajewski, F. (2006).
Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial
displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology, 44(3),
549–592.
Wilcox, P., & Eck, J. E. (2011). Criminology of the unpopular. Criminology and
Public Policy, 10(2), 473–482.