TESTING FOR TEMPORALLY DIFFERENTIATED RELATIONSHIPS AMONG POTENTIALLY CRIMINOGENIC PLACES AND CENSUS BLOCK STREET ROBBERY COUNTS

• Published date: 01 August 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12076
• Author: CORY P. HABERMAN,JERRY H. RATCLIFFE
• Date: 01 August 2015

TESTING FOR TEMPORALLY DIFFERENTIATED

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG POTENTIALLY

CRIMINOGENIC PLACES AND CENSUS BLOCK

STREET ROBBERY COUNTS∗

CORY P. HABERMAN and JERRY H. RATCLIFFE

Department of Criminal Justice and Center for Security and Crime Science,

Temple University

KEYWORDS: crime pattern theory, time geography, street robbery

This study examined street robbery patterns in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from the

years 2009 to 2011 to determine whether the effects of potentially criminogenic places

are different across different periods of the day. Census block (N =13,164) street rob-

bery counts across four periods (6:45 a.m.to9:59a.m., 10:00 a.m.to4:29p.m., 4:30 p.m.

to 9:14 p.m., and 9:15 p.m. to 6:44 a.m.) were modeled with 12 different potentially crim-

inogenic places, 3 measures of illicit markets, 4 compositional control variables, and

spatially lagged versions of the 12 potentially criminogenic places and population us-

ing simultaneously estimated negative binomial regression models. Differences in the

magnitudes of the parameter estimates across the time periods were assessed with Wald

tests. Overall, the patterns across the four models were mostly consistent with the effects

hypothesized based on the study’s crime pattern theory and time-geography theoreti-

cal frame; yet differences in the magnitudes of the coefficients were less pronounced

than hypothesized. Overall, the results provide moderate support for the crime pattern

theory and time-geography explanation of spatial-temporal robbery patterns; however,

numerous points are raised for future crime and place research.

An axiom of the crime and place literature is that certain types of places are important

predictors of the spatial distribution of crime (P. L. Brantingham and P. J. Brantingham,

1999; P. J. Brantingham and P. L. Brantingham, 1991; Wilcox and Eck, 2011) and even can

be used to forecast crime events (Caplan, Kennedy, and Miller, 2010). The link among

certain types of places and higher crime levels has been empirically demonstrated for

many different types of places, such as high schools, bars and taverns, convenience stores,

public transportation stations, check-cashing stores, liquor stores, parks, and public hous-

ing communities (Bernasco and Block, 2011; Weisburd, Groff, and Yang, 2012). Whether

by acting as a crime attractor or as a generator, the proclivity of criminogenic places to

∗Additional supporting information can be found in the listing for this article in the Wiley Online

Library at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crim.2015.53.issue-3/issuetoc.

The authors would like to thank Criminology editor D. Wayne Osgood and the three anony-

mous reviewers who provided stimulating comments that drastically improved the quality of

the article. Direct correspondence to Cory P. Haberman, Department of Criminal Justice, Tem-

ple University, 5th Floor Gladfelter Hall, 1115 W. Polett Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19122 (e-mail:

cory.haberman@temple.edu).

C2015 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12076

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 53 Number 3 457–483 2015 457

458 HABERMAN & RATCLIFFE

produce crime problems is also theorized to be a function of time (P. L. Brantingham

and P. J. Brantingham, 1995; Felson and Boba, 2010). Aggregate human activity patterns

exhibit natural temporal rhythms (Chapin, 1974; Cohen and Felson, 1979; Hawley, 1950).

These natural rhythms influence when and where the basic elements of crime—motivated

offenders and suitable targets lacking adequate guardianship—can converge during the

course of a day (Felson, 2006). The purpose of the current study is to investigate whether

the effects of potentially criminogenic facilities are measurably different across various

times of the day.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

CRIME PATTERN THEORY

Crime pattern theory describes the environmental backcloth (i.e., urban landscape) as

a collection of nodes (i.e., places) connected to one another via pathways (i.e., the street

network and other transportation modes) (P. L. Brantingham and P. J. Brantingham,

1993; P. J. Brantingham and P. L. Brantingham, 1993a, 1993b). The distribution of a city’s

land uses and arrangement of transportation pathways determines where and how people

can travel through the city (Horton and Reynolds, 1971; Groff, Weisburd, and Morris,

2009; Kinney et al., 2008). Peoples’ daily travel occurs within their activity spaces—or the

places they visit routinely and the routes they take between those places (Horton and

Reynolds, 1971; P. L. Brantingham and P. J. Brantingham, 1993).

By drawing from the routine activity approach (Cohen and Felson, 1979), crime pat-

tern theory predicts crime will cluster along the most commonly traveled pathways and

around particular nodes that create the greatest number of offender–target–inadequate

guardianship convergences (P. J. Brantingham and P. L. Brantingham, 1993b). However,

human activity patterns are not uniform throughout the duration of a day (Chapin, 1974;

Felson, 2006; Felson and Boba, 2010; Felson and Poulsen, 2003). Human activities take

place at locations within finite time periods because human activity is constrained by bio-

logical and social factors (H¨

agerstrand, 1970; Miller, 2005; Ratcliffe, 2006). For example,

humans’ biological need for sleep constrains our movement for long periods of time reg-

ularly each night. Human movement is limited also by coupling constraints or the need

to engage with other individuals or organizations to participate in basic social and eco-

nomic activities, such as the requirement to go to work, school, or the doctor’s office at

certain times. Finally, authority constraints are limitations put onto human movement by

controlling individuals and groups (H¨

agerstrand, 1970; Miller, 2005; Ratcliffe, 2006).

In general, the regular rhythms observed in human activity patterns are mostly a result

of diurnal and commerce patterns (Hawley, 1950; Pred, 1981) driven by coupling con-

straints (Chapin, 1974; H¨

agerstrand, 1970; Ratcliffe, 2006). During weekdays, adults tend

to engage in paid employment or domestic chores during the day while children are at

school. At the end of the business day, most people travel home. In the evening hours,

people engage in discretionary activities, such as enjoying a few drinks with friends at a

bar or restaurant; generally, however, time-use studies show the evening hours are mostly

spent attending to housework, running errands, or watching television. The late-night and

early-morning hours are spent sleeping to satisfy the body’s natural need for sleep.

These temporal constraints suggest that, “As the relevant actors—victims, offenders,

guardians, and place managers—adjust their relative densities over time and around

specific places, the opportunities for crime shift and coagulate” (Ratcliffe, 2010: 15). It