Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Civic technologies levy advances in digital tools to promote civic engagement, giving people a voice to participate in public decision-making. While democratizing participation, the use of such civic tech also leaves behind a digital trace of the behavior of its users. This article uses such a digital trace to explore spatial patterns in active guardianship of public space. Through mapping people’s participation in a platform for reporting neighborhood concerns (a form of digitally enabled guardianship), the spatial range of guardianship is unpacked using exploratory spatial data analysis. Typologies for guardianship behavior are then created using k-means clustering. Results provide an insight into the heterogeneity of spatial behavior of different groups of guardians outside the home environment. Guardians appear to not be limited to activity within a neighborhood, and instead cover a larger awareness space with nodes and paths, and also show distinct patterns, indicating heterogeneity in guardianship patterns. Recommendations are made to consider operationalizing guardians as heterogeneous, and active in their entire activity space, rather than homogeneous groups assigned as crime prevention forces to a residential area.

Keywords

guardianship civil tech crowdsourcing spatial patterns neighborhood

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adnan

Longley

P. A.

Singleton

A. D.

Brunsdon

(2010). Towards real-time geodemographics: Clustering algorithm performance for large multidimensional spatial databases. Transactions in GIS, 14, 283–297. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2010.01197.x

Anderson

T. K.

(2009). Kernel density estimation and K-means clustering to profile road accident hotspots. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41, 359–364.

Anselin

Williams

(2016). Digital neighborhoods. Journal of Urbanism, 9, 305–328. doi:10.1080/17549175.2015.1080752

Bakolis

Hammoud

Smythe

Gibbons

Davidson

Tognin

Mechelli

(2018). Urban mind: Using smartphone technologies to investigate the impact of nature on mental well-being in real time. BioScience, 68, 134–145. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix149

Bernasco

Nieuwbeerta

(2005). How do residential burglars select target areas? The British Journal of Criminology, 45, 296–315. doi:10.1093/bjc/azh070

Bivand

(2010). Exploratory spatial data analysis. In Fischer

M. M.

Getis

(Eds.), Handbook of applied spatial analysis (pp. 219–254). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03647-7

Bivand

Rundel

(2017). Package “rgeos.” Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://cran.rstudio.com/web/packages/rgeos/rgeos.pdf

Boehner

DiSalvo

(2016). Data, design and civics. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI ‘16 (pp. 2970–2981). New York, NY: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858326

Borges

Ziehr

Beigl

Cacho

Martins

Sudrich

… Popp

(2017). Feature engineering for crime hotspot detection. IEEE International Conference on Smart City Innovations (IEEE SCI 2017), 1–8.

10.

Brantingham

P. L.

(2008). Crime pattern theory. In Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis (pp. 78–93). Didcot, England: Taylor & Francis.

11.

Brantingham

P. L.

Brantingham

P. J.

(1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.

12.

Brock

(2014). clValid. Retrieved from https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/clValid

13.

Brunton-Smith

Sutherland

Jackson

(2013). The role of neighbourhoods in shaping crime and perceptions of crime. In Manley

van Ham

Bailey

Simpson

Maclennan

(Eds.), Neighbourhood effects or neighbourhood based problems? A policy context (pp. 67–87). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

14.

Bursik

R. J.

(1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–552. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00854.x

15.

Charrad

Ghazzali

Boiteau

Niknafs

(2014). NbClust: An R package for determining the relevant number of clusters in a data set. Journal of Statistical Software, 61, 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v061.i06

16.

Charreire

Feuillet

Roda

Mackenbach

J. D.

Compernolle

Glonti

… Oppert

J. M.

(2016). Self-defined residential neighbourhoods: Size variations and correlates across five European urban regions. Obesity Reviews, 17, 9–18.

17.

Cohen

E. L.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

18.

Crawford

Finn

(2015). The limits of crisis data: Analytical and ethical challenges of using social and mobile data to understand disasters. GeoJournal, 80, 491–502.

19.

Curman

A. S.

Andresen

M. A.

Brantingham

P. J.

(2015). Crime and place: A longitudinal examination of street segment patterns in Vancouver, BC. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 127–147.

20.

Elwood

Goodchild

M. F.

Sui

D. Z.

(2012). Researching volunteered geographic information: Spatial data, geographic research, and new social practice. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102, 571–590.

21.

Felson

Clarke

R. V.

Webb

(1998). Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention. London, England: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit: Police Research Series. doi:10.1186/2193-7680-1-3

22.

Gerell

(2017). Smallest is better? The spatial distribution of arson and the modifiable areal unit problem. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33, 293–318.

23.

Günter

Bunke

(2003). Validation indices for graph clustering. Pattern Recognition Letters, 24, 1107–1113. doi:10.1016/S0167-8655(02)00257-X

24.

Hipp

(2010a). Micro-structure in micro-neighborhoods: A new social distance measure, and its effect on individual and aggregated perceptions of crime and disorder. Social Networks, 32, 148–159.

25.

Hipp

(2010b). What is the “neighbourhood” in neighbourhood satisfaction? Comparing the effects of structural characteristics measured at the micro-neighbourhood and tract levels. Urban Studies, 47, 2517–2536.

26.

Hipp

J. R.

Bates

Lichman

Smyth

(2018). Using social media to measure temporal ambient population: Does it help explain local crime rates? Justice Quarterly, 1–31.

27.

Hollis-Peel

M. E.

Reynald

D. M.

van Bavel

Elffers

Welsh

B. C.

(2011). Guardianship for crime prevention: A critical review of the literature. Crime, Law and Social Change, 56, 53–70.

28.

Housley

Procter

Edwards

Burnap

Williams

Sloan

Greenhill

(2014). Big and broad social data and the sociological imagination: A collaborative response. Big Data & Society, 1, 1–15. doi:10.1177/2053951714545135

29.

Karney

C. F. F.

(2013). Algorithms for geodesics. Journal of Geodesy, 87, 43–55. doi:10.1007/s00190-012-0578-z

30.

Kononenko

Kukar

(2007). Machine learning and data mining: introduction to principles and algorithms. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.

31.

Lee

A. H.

Mccormick

Spiro

Cesare

(2015). Exploring the relationship between citizens and the police via twitter. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 509–535.

32.

Lupton

(2003, September 24). “Neighbourhood effects”: Can we measure them and does it matter? CASE Paper 73, 24. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6327/1/Neighbourhood_Effects_Can_we_measure_them_and_does_it_matter.pdf

33.

Malleson

Andresen

M. A.

(2015). The impact of using social media data in crime rate calculations: Shifting hot spots and changing spatial patterns. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 42, 112–121. doi:10.1080/15230406.2014.905756

34.

Manley

Flowerdew

Steel

(2006). Scales, levels and processes: Studying spatial patterns of British census variables. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30, 143–160.

35.

Melgaco

(2016). The revolution will be more than televised. Retrieved February 26, 2018, from http://www.enargywebzine.eu/spip.php?article434

36.

Moir

E. C.

(2016). Guardianship in the Brisbane suburbs: An exploratory study of crime control by residents in a non-urban context. Brisbane, Australia: Griffith University.

37.

Moir

E. C.

Stewart

Reynald

D. M.

Hart

T. C.

(2017). Guardianship in Action (GIA) within Brisbane suburbs. Criminal Justice Review, 42, 254–269. doi:10.1177/0734016817724199

38.

Moro

Cortez

Rita

(2014). A data-driven approach to predict the success of bank telemarketing. Decision Support Systems, 62, 22–31. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.03.001

39.

MySociety. (2016). MySociety about page. Retrieved from https://www.mysociety.org/about/

40.

Newton

A. D.

Bowers

K. J.

(2007). The geography of bus shelter damage: The influence of crime, neighbourhood characteristics and land-use. Internet Journal of Criminology. Retrieved from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/474/1/NewtonGeography.pdf

41.

O’Brien

D. T.

Sampson

R. J.

Winship

(2015). Ecometrics in the age of big data. Sociological Methodology, 45, 101–147. doi:10.1177/0081175015576601

42.

O’Connor

(2010). Maps for advocacy: An introduction to geographical mapping techniques. India: Tactical Technology Collective. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Maps+for+Advocay:+an+Introduction+to+Geographical+Mapping+Techniques#2

43.

Office for National Statistics. (2017). Census geography. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/geography/ukgeographies/censusgeography/143-160. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2005.08.005

44.

Openshaw

(1984). Ecological fallacies and the analysis of areal census data. Environment and Planning A, 16, 17–31.

45.

Raykov

Y. P.

Boukouvalas

Baig

Little

M. A.

(2016). What to do when k-means clustering fails: A simple yet principled alternative algorithm. PLoS One, 11, e0162259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162259

46.

Rengert

G. F.

Lockwood

(2009). Geographical units of analysis and the analysis of crime. In Weisburd

Bernasco

Bruinsma

G. J. N.

(Eds.), Putting crime in its place (pp. 109–122). New York, NY: Springer.

47.

Reynald

D. M.

(2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal, 11, 1–20. doi:10.1057/cpcs.2008.19

48.

Reynald

D. M.

(2011). Guarding against crime: Measuring guardianship within routine activity theory. Farnham, England: Ashgate.

49.

Rumbul

(2015). Who benefits from civic technology? Retrieved February 27, 2018, from http://research.mysociety.org/publications/who-benefits-from-civic-technology

50.

Sarstedt

Mooi

(2014). Cluster analysis (pp. 273–324). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-53965-7_9

51.

Şenbabaoğlu

Michailidis

J. Z.

(2015). Critical limitations of consensus clustering in class discovery. Scientific Reports, 4, 6207. doi:10.1038/srep06207

52.

Sengupta

(2009). Advances in multivariate statistical methods. In Pal

S. K.

(Ed.), Statistica. Singapore: World Scientific.

53.

Shiramatsu

Tossavainen

Ozono

Shintani

(2015). Towards continuous collaboration on civic tech projects: Use cases of a goal sharing system based on linked open data. In: Tambouris

. (Eds.), Electronic Participation (pp. 81–92). Cham: Springer.

54.

Solymosi

Bowers

Fujiyama

(2015). Mapping fear of crime as a context-dependent everyday experience that varies in space and time. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 193–211.

55.

Solymosi

Bowers

K. J.

Fujiyama

(2017). Crowdsourcing subjective perceptions of neighbourhood disorder: Interpreting bias in open data. The British Journal of Criminology, 58, 944–967.

56.

Solymosi

Bowers

(2018). The role of innovative data collection methods in advancing criminological understanding. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Criminology, 210, 210–237.

57.

Stewart

Lubensky

Huerta

J. M.

(2010). Crowdsourcing participation inequality: A SCOUT model for the enterprise domain. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation (pp. 30–33).

58.

Sturgis

Brunton-Smith

Kuha

Jackson

(2014). Ethnic diversity, segregation and the social cohesion of neighbourhoods in London. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37, 1286–1309.

59.

Trevino

(2016). Introduction to K-means clustering. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.datascience.com/blog/k-means-clustering

60.

Vayena

Mastroianni

Kahn

(2012). Ethical issues in health research with novel online sources. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 2225–2230.

61.

Weisburd

Bruinsma

Bernasco

(2009). Units of analysis in geographic criminology: Historical development, critical issues, and open questions. Putting Crime in Its Place: Units of Analysis in Geographic Criminology, 3–31. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09688-9_1

62.

Weisburd

Groff

E. R.

Yang

S. M.

(2014). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

63.

Wikstrom

P. O. H.

Ceccato

Hardie

Treiber

(2010). Activity fields and the dynamics of crime: Advancing knowledge about the role of the environment in crime causation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 55–87.

64.

Williams

M. L.

Burnap

Sloan

(2016). Crime sensing with big data: The affordances and limitations of using open source communications to estimate crime patterns. British Journal of Criminology, azw031. doi:10.1093/bjc/azw031

65.

Wood

(2010). Rethinking the power of maps. London, England: Guildford Press.

66.

Woodruff

(2012). Crowdsourced neighbourhood boundaries, part one: Consensus. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from http://bostonography.com/2012/crowdsourced-neighborhood-boundaries-part-one-consensus