Crime Diversity: Reexamining Crime Richness Across Spatial Scales

• Author: Theodore S. Lentz
• Published date: 01 August 2018
• Date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986218770002
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986218770002

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2018, Vol. 34(3) 312 –335

© The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986218770002

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Crime Diversity:

Reexamining Crime Richness

Across Spatial Scales

Theodore S. Lentz1

Abstract

Although much of the crime and place literature seeks to explain crime frequency

in relation to environmental conditions, few studies have examined crime diversity

in space. This article reexamines a study of crime diversity in relation to a neutral

model assuming environmental conditions have minimal influence on crime patterns.

The original study results show that the variety of crime types in a given area (i.e.,

crime richness) increases regularly across spatial scales, and is largely consistent

with a neutral or random process. This conclusion makes no appeal to the crime-

environment dependencies often believed to influence crime occurrence, making the

study a worthy candidate for additional scrutiny. The current study first verifies the

original study results in Los Angeles, CA, and demonstrates their robustness with

alternative crime classification schemes. Next, two alternative methods are used to

check whether results differ when (a) locations are sampled randomly from the entire

city rather than observed crime locations, and (b) when the unit of analysis is grid

cells rather than “point-buffers.” Finally, all analyses are replicated in St. Louis, MO,

as a first look at generalizability. Conclusions are largely consistent with the original

study, but important differences arise when alternative sampling techniques and units

of analysis are used. Future directions for crime diversity research are discussed.

Keywords

Crime diversity, environmental criminology, neutral models, ecology, crime and place

1University of Missouri–St. Louis, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Theodore S. Lentz, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis,

530 Lucas Hall, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA.

Email: tslqn9@mail.umsl.edu

770002CCJXXX10.1177/1043986218770002Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeLentz

research-article2018

Lentz 313

Introduction

The key proposition of environmental criminology asserts that crime occurrence is

closely linked to environmental conditions. Although much of the previous research

has focused on crime frequency rather than crime diversity, it follows that environ-

mental conditions might also explain the types of crime that occur at a given place. As

in other scientific disciplines (e.g., ecology), studying diversity is especially important

when seeking to distinguish between general and specific causes of a given phenom-

enon. Many criminological studies have examined diversity in offending at the indi-

vidual level (e.g., Osgood & Schreck, 2007; Piquero, Oster, Mazerolle, Brame, &

Dean, 1999), but relatively little work has explicitly considered the distinction between

general and specific causes in the context of crime and place (Brantingham &

Brantingham, 1981; Clarke & Cornish, 1985; Weisburd et al., 1992).

In a recently published study of crime diversity, Brantingham (2016) documents

crime richness, the number or variety of unique crime types, across a wide range of

spatial scales, and seeks the simplest explanation to explain the relationship between

crime richness and area size. His findings show the observed pattern is strikingly con-

sistent with a neutral model that ignores the role of environmental conditions in driv-

ing the relationship. Essentially, the model treats the assortment of crime types across

the landscape as a random process by assuming environmental conditions do not dic-

tate where certain types of crime occur. As Brantingham (2016) states, “ . . . an exceed-

ingly simple model goes a long way toward explaining the observed relationship . . .

without invoking complex crime-environment dependencies” (p. 578). Although it is

plausible that the processes driving crime may simply be so complex that they appear

random, these results seem difficult to accept given what we believe to know about

crime patterns. Brantingham’s (2016) strong conclusions make the study a deserving

candidate for additional scrutiny.

This article reexamines Brantingham’s (2016) original study in several impor-

tant ways. First, the original Los Angeles, CA, results are reproduced using pub-

licly available crime data, and these results are checked for robustness using

alternative crime classification schemes. Next, two methodological issues are

addressed regarding Brantingham’s (2016) unconventional method of sampling and

unit of analysis. Finally, all analyses are replicated in St. Louis, MO, as a first look

toward the generalizability of the neutral model. The results are largely consistent

with Brantingham (2016), but provide additional clues as to the fitness of the neu-

tral model to observed patterns of diversity. Future studies of crime diversity can

build from this work to further understand the potential processes driving crime

occurrence in space.

In what follows, the neutral model used by Brantingham (2016) is explained theo-

retically and in terms of policy and practice. Next, I critically examine Brantingham’s

(2016) original methodology, which uses unconventional methods to measure crime

richness across spatial scales. Then, results are presented to empirically assess the key

issues outlined. The final sections discuss the results and their broader implications for

the field.