Crime Mapping

VI. Conclusion

The purpose of this research paper was to review some of the current research on crime mapping, the process through which crime analysts and researchers use location information about crime to detect spatial patterns in criminal activity. Although the history of crime mapping can be traced to the beginnings of the field of criminology, it is only recently that researchers and crime analysts have been able to engage in extensive mapping efforts, primarily due to the development of the desktop computer and GIS software. The emergence of the problem-oriented policing model, along with advances in the theory of criminal events, created a niche for crime mapping in police agencies. The popularization of computerized crime mapping through the Compstat program in New York led to a period of rapid adoption of crime mapping that continues today.

Several theories that are widely used in crime mapping research were also discussed in this research paper. Social disorganization theory argues that structural factors can compromise the social networks needed for social integration, which in turn reduces the capacity of communities to regulate the behavior of its members. Routine activities theory states that crime can be understood through the convergence in time and space of suitable targets, motivated offenders, and the absence of capable guardians. Defensible space and CPTED focuses on how the design of a physical space can prevent crime through increasing territorial functioning and enhancing surveillance capabilities. The rational choice and crime pattern theories of crime focus primarily on explaining how patterns of offender routine activities and target-searching strategies can increase the level of crime in particular areas. Taken together, these theories provide the conceptual backdrop for understanding the spatial distribution of crime and designing strategies to combat crime in high-crime areas.

Finally, this research paper aimed to elaborate on some of the major findings in crime mapping and spatial crime research, with particular attention to designing strategies to combat crime problems. It was argued that the best strategy for eliminating crime hot spots requires consideration of causal factors operating at both the neighborhood and site levels. This research paper concluded with a number of suggestions for future researchers examining spatial crime patterns through crime mapping. In particular, crime mapping research may benefit from efforts at theoretical integration, using crime mapping with additional agencies, further examining the source of differences in the production of criminal opportunities between city features, and examining the stability of crime areas over time.

Read more about Criminology.


  1. Block, R., & Davis, S. (1996). The environs of rapid transit stations: A focus for street crime or just another risky place? In R. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies: Vol. 6. Preventing mass transit crime. (pp. 237–257). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  2. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1982). Mobility, notoriety, and crime: A study in crime patterns of urban nodal points. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 89–99.
  3. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1991a). Introduction: The dimensions of crime. In P. J Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 7–26). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.
  4. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1991b). Notes on the geometry of crime. In P. J. Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 27–54). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.
  5. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1993). Nodes, paths, and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.
  6. Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.
  7. Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  8. Clarke, R. V. (1997). Part 1: Introduction. In R. Clarke (Ed.). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed., pp. 1–44). Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston.
  9. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime trends:A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
  10. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). Introduction. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 1–13). New York: Springer- Verlag.
  11. Crowe, T. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design: Applications of architectural design and space management concepts (2nd ed.). Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann.
  12. Eck, J. E. (2001). Policing and crime event concentration. In R. F. Meier, L. W. Kennedy, & V. F. Sacco (Eds.), The process and structure of crime: Criminal events and crime analysis (pp. 249–276). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  13. Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
  14. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delinquency, 25, 236–258.
  15. Jeffery, C. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
  16. Mark, D. M., Chrisman, N., Frank, A. U., McHaffie, P. H., & Pickles, J. (1997). The GIS History Project. Retrieved from
  17. Mazerolle, L., Soole, D. L., & Rombouts, S. (2006). Street-level drug law enforcement: A meta analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 409–435.
  18. Meier, R. F., Kennedy, L.W., & Sacco,V. F. (2001). Crime and the criminal events perspective. In R. F.Meier, L.W. Kennedy, & V. F. Sacco (Eds.), The process and structure of crime: Criminal events and crime analysis (pp. 1–28). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  19. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. M. (1994). Crime and its social context. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  20. Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Phillips, D. M. (2002). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  21. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Collier Books.
  22. Park, R. E., & Burgess E. W. (1924). Introduction to the science of sociology (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Rengert, G. F., Piquero, A. R., & Jones, P. R. (1999). Distance decay re-examined. Criminology, 37, 427–445.
  24. Roncek, D. W., Bell, R., & Francik, J. M. A. (1981). Housing projects and crime. Social Problems, 29, 151–166.
  25. Roncek, D. W., & Faggiani, D. (1985). High schools and crime: A replication. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 491–505.
  26. Roncek, D. W., & Maier, P. A. (1993). Bars, blocks, and crime revisited: Linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots.” Criminology, 29, 725–753.
  27. Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441–478.
  28. Rossmo, K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  29. Sacco, V. F., & Kennedy, L. W. (2002). The criminal event: Perspectives in space and time. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  30. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997, August 15). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multi-level study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
  31. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University. of Chicago Press.
  32. Sherman, L.W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.
  33. Sherman, L.W., &Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.
  34. Skogan,W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  35. Spelman, W. (1993). Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 481–495.
  36. Veysey, B. M., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Further testing of social disorganization theory: An elaboration of Sampson and Grove’s “community structure and crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 156–174.
  37. Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places:A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology, 42, 283–321.
  38. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City Drug Market Experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–736.
  39. Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in policing: Linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 6, 419–434.