Geography and Crime
Burgess, Clifford Shaw, Henry McKay, and several
BRIAN R. WYANT
Historically, criminological research has focused
on what personal characteristics cause individuals
to commit crime. However, since at least the mid
nineteenth century, when it was acknowledged
that crime was not uniformly dispersed across
space, researchers have incorporated the impor-
tant role of geography into the study of crime.
The study of geography and crime focuses on
explaining variations in the spatial distribution of
crime, focusing on the role of geographic location
and environmental influences. Considering the
impact of places rather than that of people has led
not only to important advances in understanding
the causes of crime but also to the development of
valuable tools that have shaped crime reduction
strategies.
The first study of the relationship between
geography and crime can be traced back almost
200 years to France, when Andre-Michel Guerry
created maps outlining the distribution of prop-
erty crime, violent crime, and various census
data (1833). Combing the data revealed that
low rates of violent crime were correlated with
lower levels of education and that greater levels
of property crime were occurring in the wealthy
areas. Around the same time, Adolphe Quetelet
was mapping and analyzing additional data from
France and found that not only were certain
people more likely to commit crime but also
that certain areas experienced increased levels
of crime. On average, those who were poor
and unemployed tended to commit crimes in
wealthier areas (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 1998).
Although the groundbreaking work of Guerry
and Quetelet highlighted the spatial variation of
crime, the study of the geography of crime did
not significantly take hold in the United States
until the early twentieth century.
Sociologists from the University of Chicago are
often credited with introducing the study of the
relationship between communities and crime in
the United States. What came to be known as the
The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, First Edition. Edited by Wesley G. Jennings.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx007
Chicago School grew out of work from Ernest
of their colleagues. In 1925, Burgess identified
five concentric zones that began in Chicago’s
city center and expanded outward to the edge of
the city. In general, he argued that inner zones
were characterized by more social and physical
deterioration, whereas the outer zones located
near the city’s edge tended to be more prosperous.
Although Burgess was not specifically interested
in the study of place and crime, his work would
be used by two researchers in Chicago to further
understand the geography of crime. Shaw and
McKay (1942) mapped, by hand, multiple waves
of data representing addresses of male juveniles
who had been brought in front of a juvenile
court in Chicago. Ultimately, Shaw and McKay
were able to create a map displaying the rate of
male delinquents across 140 areas in Chicago.
Combining their map displaying the rate of male
delinquents in different areas of Chicago with
the concentric zone model developed by Burgess,
Shaw and McKay showed that the highest rates
of juvenile delinquents were consistently concen-
trated near the city center. Relative to other parts
of the city, these high crime areas were marked
by little residential stability, higher levels of racial
and ethnic heterogeneity, and residents of low
economic status. Shaw and McKay argued that
these structural characteristics may predispose
communities to becoming more vulnerable to
delinquent activity as they may affect the ability
of residents in communities to recognize shared
values and control behavior (Lersch, 2004).
The pioneering works of those in the Chicago
School eventually fell out of favor (Kubrin &
Weitzer, 2003) as individual theories of crimi-
nality regained popularity. However, in the mid
1970s and again in the late 1990s, the role of
geography and crime resurfaced. Focusing first
on the latter, in the late 1990s, social disorgani-
zation experienced a revival when researchers in
Chicago found that neighborhoods with higher
levels of trust among neighbors and where neigh-
bors are willing to intervene on others’ behalf,
defined as collective efficacy, had significantly
2 GEOGRAPHY
lower levels of crime (Sampson, Raudenbush,
& Earls, 1997). Thus, variations in crime across
neighborhoods can in part be explained by the
capacity of its residents to act efficaciously. Yet,
the main expansion and development of environ-
mental criminology and place-based analysis of
crime can be traced back to the mid 1970s, when
the public and researchers looked for alternative
views to explain criminal behavior and more
concrete or practical crime reduction strategies.
In Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through
Urban Design (1972), Oscar Newman argued
that the physical form found in the urban envi-
ronment affects crime levels. Focusing primarily
on the physical design of public housing build-
ings, Newman hypothesized that the layout of
high-rise buildings does not provide real and
symbolic barriers to potential criminals or allow
opportunities for natural surveillance that might
reduce crime. Although Newman’s suggestions
to increase territoriality and natural surveillance
and to make public housing less distinguishable
from expensive private apartment buildings did
not always result in reductions of crime (Merry,
1981), it did further shed light on the notion that
environmental design can be linked to crime and
delinquency.
Expanding on the work of Newman’s defensible
space, C. Ray Jeffrey advocated for a wider range
of practices to manipulate the built environment
to influence potential offenders’ decisions to
commit a criminal act. Termed “crime preven-
tion through environmental design” (CPTED),
Jeffrey (1977) and, later, Crowe (2000) argued
that design approaches that emphasize natural
access control, natural surveillance, and territo-
rial behavior can enhance the perceived risk of
detection by offenders and prevent crime. For
example, discouraging access to an area via a
gate, increasing surveillance by installing outdoor
lighting, and clearly delineating public from
private space by posting signage are posited by
the CPTED perspective to reduce opportunities
for crime. Although police and city planners have
praised CPTED as an effective approach to crime
prevention, empirical research has been mixed
regarding its impact on reducing crime (Lersch,
2004).
Later groundbreaking work by Lawrence Cohen
and Marcus Felson (1979) examined how struc-
tural changes in individuals’ everyday routine
AND CRIME
activities affect crime. They argued the likelihood
of victimization increases or decreases as people
move throughout their daily routines (e.g., travel-
ing to work, school, or leisure activities) because
crime and victimization are dependent on the
convergence of three necessary elements. The
three elements that must be present in space and
time are (1) a motivated offender (i.e., someone
has the desire and skill to commit a crime), (2)
a suitable target (i.e., a person or object that
is perceived by offenders to be vulnerable and
valuable), and (3) lack of a capable guardian (i.e.,
anyone present who might discourage crime).
They contended that changes in society, such as
increased personal affluence and the rise of activ-
ities away from the home, resulted in increased
opportunities for crime as they brought together
motivated offenders and suitable targets and
encouraged the absence of capable guardians.
For example, post World War II, the United
States experienced an increase in the number
of small durable goods of value, providing a
large number of suitable targets because they are
easy to conceal and carry off. Further, as women
increasingly joined the workforce and people
in general traveled farther to work, there were
fewer people at home to act as a capable guardian
against burglary (Cohen & Felson, 1979).
The relationship between crime and the phys-
ical environment was further highlighted by
Patricia and Paul Brantingham (1993) in their
development of crime pattern theory. They
hypothesized that criminal activity is in part a
result of a city’s geographic environment. Crime
is most likely to occur in what Brantingham
and Brantingham termed an offender’s “action
space.” The offender’s action space is the area
in which they move throughout the day while
conducting legitimate and illegitimate activities
where they may take note of potential targets
and guardians. Offenders will travel via paths to
and from common or frequent places such as
one’s school or a shopping center that are called
“nodes.” The consistent movements along paths
between nodes help an offender become familiar
with an area, thus forming a cognitive map of
the area or a mental image of the environment
(Lersch, 2004). Brantingham and Brantingham
argued that individuals are more likely to commit
crime in areas that are known to them, where
they feel comfortable; therefore, the location of
 GEOGRAPHY
schools, leisure venues, and street networks in
part dictates where crime is more likely to occur.
There might not be a more influential and
controversial theory in criminology than the
broken windows thesis. First introduced by James
Q. Wilson and George Kelling (1982), the broken
windows theory holds that urban decay and
disorder can lead to more serious crime. Physical
disorders such as unrepaired broken windows or
the accumulation of trash increase fear, thereby
leading residents to isolate themselves or abandon
their neighborhood. This isolation and abandon-
ment can then contribute to further decline, as
the neighborhood now lacks significant informal
social control. Eventually, offenders are attracted
to the area because they feel they can act with
impunity. Since the theory’s inception, some
police departments have emphasized clamping
down on minor crimes and using additional
resources to target quality of life issues. For
example, in the 1990s, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
of New York and Police Commissioner William
Bratton adopted techniques arguably aligned
with some concepts from broken windows the-
ory. During Mayor Giuliani’s tenure from 1994 to
2001, police departments focused on combatting
quality of life issues such as vagrancy, vandalism,
and panhandling. Overall, in New York during
Mayor Giuliani’s term, misdemeanor arrests
skyrocketed while the rate of violent felonies
plummeted (Kelling & Sousa, 2001). Although
some have questioned whether serious crime is
linked to disorder (Taylor, 2001) and whether
the techniques adopted in New York resulted in
unnecessarily confrontational and overly aggres-
sive police tactics, the theory remains popular
and influential among politicians and some
high-ranking law enforcement officials.
For police and other practitioners, the study of
geography and crime has led to the adoption of
various innovations, including hot spot policing,
CompStat, geographic profiling, and situational
crime prevention tactics. The understanding
that crime is higher than average and persistent
in specific areas has resulted, in some cases, in
the police concentrating resources on these hot
spots of crime. Ultimately, there may be greater
utility for the police to focus on places rather
than on individual offenders, as crime hot spots
tend to be more stable and persistent compared
with individuals, whose behaviors tend to be
AND CRIME 3
more dynamic in terms of offending. Research
examining concerted efforts by the police to
identify and allocate resources to crime hot
spots has been very positive, generally showing
significant reductions in crime (Braga, 2001).
This place-based approach to crime prevention
coincided with and was likely in large part due to
the growth and use of Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) for crime mapping.
The use of computerized crime mapping to aid
in crime prevention might best be exemplified
by the use and expansion of CompStat (short
for computer statistics or comparative statistics).
Using GIS technology by the late 1990s, large
police departments started adopting the use of
CompStat, where operational commanders are
provided with and disseminate up-to-date and
detailed intelligence regarding the type, timing,
and location of crime (Chainey & Ratcliffe, 2005).
Essential to the CompStat process is crime map-
ping. Using crime maps allows police personnel
to visually identify current and emerging prob-
lems, assign police to specific locales, and gauge
the effectiveness of their efforts. Generally on a
weekly basis, police personnel gather and maps
are disributed among those in attendance, includ-
ing maps projected on a screen for the larger
audience (Chainey & Ratcliffe, 2005). The crime
maps and related statistics are the primary focus
in these meetings as operational commanders are
questioned about crime and quality of life issues
in the precinct for which he or she is responsible.
Ultimately, the police are attempting to figure out
why crime is occurring in specific areas, what
should be done to prevent crime, and whether
the strategies and tactics devised by the police
are effective. The implementation of CompStat
has required police to focus on explaining the
spatial distribution and variations in crime, often
resulting is a placed-based approach to crime
prevention (Chainey & Ratcliffe).
More recently, the study of geography and
crime has led to the development of geographic
profiling, a criminal investigative methodol-
ogy that attempts to connect the locations of a
series of related crimes to determine the area
an offender most likely travels and lives within
(Rossmo, 1995). Geographic profiling was devel-
oped based on the theoretical foundations of
the journey-to-crime analysis, routine activity
theory, and crime pattern theory (Chainey &
4 GEOGRAPHY
Ratcliffe, 2005). Simply put, geographic profiling
assumes that offenders are likely to select victims
near their home and other areas where they feel
familiar and safe. It uses both qualitative methods
to understand the offenders’ spatial movement
and quantitative methods to analyze the pattern
of locations where the crimes are committed. It
is mostly used in instances of serial murder, but
it has been applied to other crimes where police
are confident the same offender has committed
a series of crimes at different locales. By under-
standing the field of environmental criminology
and examining the geography of related crime
scenes, police might be able to narrow down the
most probable location for the offender’s home
and travels (Rossmo, 1995).
Last, environmental theories of crime that
focus on the opportunity structures of a place
(e.g., defensible space and CPTED) have led
to a number of practical and straightforward
insights for effective crime prevention. Reducing
opportunity at places relies on situational crime
prevention tactics that focus on a specific crime
type, attempting to increase the likelihood
of detection, enhance the effort required for
an offender to commit a crime, and reduce
the rewards one gains from committing crime
(Clarke, 1995). For example, placing cameras near
automated teller machines, installing steering col-
umn locks in cars, and engraving identifiers in
valuables should alter the perceived risk, effort,
and rewards of crime, thus reducing perceived
opportunities for crime. Although the examina-
tion of place and crime is not new, police and
other practitioners have taken advantage of new
technologies to better understand the geographi-
cal components of crime, to better geographically
target crime, and to put into practice effective
crime reduction strategies.
SEE ALSO: CompStat; Crime Mapping; Hot
Spots Policing; Routine Activities Theory; Social
Disorganization Theory.
References
Braga, A. A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on
crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 578, 104–125.
AND CRIME
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P J. (1993). Nodes,
paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of
crime and the physical environment. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.
Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city. In R.
E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.),
The city (pp. 47–62). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Chainey, S., & Ratcliffe, J. (2005). GIS and crime map-
ping. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention.
Crime & Justice, 19, 91–150.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and
crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Crowe, T. D. (2000). Crime prevention through envi-
ronmental design: Applications of architectural design
and space management concepts. Woburn, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Guerry, A.-M. (1833). Essai sur la statistique morale de
la France. Paris: Crochard.
Jeffery, C. R. (1977). Crime prevention through
environmental design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kelling, G. L., & Sousa, W. H. (2001). Do police mat-
ter? An analysis of the impact of New York City’s police
reforms. New York: CCI Center for Civic Innovation,
Manhattan Institute.
Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in
social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 40, 374–402.
Lersch, K. M. (2004). Space, time, and crime. Durham,
NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Merry, S. E. (1981). Defensible space undefended
social factors in crime control through environmen-
tal design. Urban Affairs Review, 16, 397–422.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention
through urban design. New York: Collier Books.
Rossmo, D. K. (1995). Place, space, and police investi-
gations: Hunting serial violent criminals. Crime and
Place, 4, 217–235.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F.
(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A mul-
tilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277,
918–924.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delin-
quency and urban areas: A study of rates of delinquents
in relation to differential characteristics of local com-
munities in American cities. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Taylor, R. B. (2001). Breaking away from broken win-
dows: Baltimore neighborhoods and the nationwide
fight against crime, grime, fear, and decline. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1998). Theoret-
ical criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.
 GEOGRAPHY
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows.
Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29–38.
Further Readings
Anderson, E. (2000). Code of the street: Decency, vio-
lence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York:
W.W. Norton.
AND CRIME 5
Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (Eds.). 1981.
Environmental criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Harries, K. D. (1973). The geography of crime and justice.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Herbert, D. T. (1982). The geography of urban crime.
London: Longman.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world
of the new urban poor. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.