Файл: [D._Kim_Rossmo]_Geographic_Profiling(BookFi.org).pdf

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

armed robbery

Ottawa

1981

1.22 mi (80% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

unarmed robbery

Ottawa

1981

0.62 mi (55% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

assault

Ottawa

1981

1.33 mi (90% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

break & enter

Ottawa

1981

0.35 mi (65% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

auto theft

Ottawa

1981

1.24 mi (70% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

theft over $200

Ottawa

1981

1.74 mi (90% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

theft under $200

Ottawa

1981

1.19 mi (60% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Gabor & Gottheil 

(1984)

cheque fraud

Ottawa

1981

1.74 mi (35% in–towners)

out–of–towners, NFAs, & 

n/k excluded

Hanfland (1982)

public indecency

Eugene, Oregon

1978–1981

2.60 mi

older offenders travelled 

further

Hanfland (1982)

burglary

Eugene, Oregon

1978–1981

1.79 mi

older offenders generally 

travelled further

Hanfland (1982)

rape/sodomy

Eugene, Oregon

1978–1981

2.66 mi

older offenders generally 

travelled further

Hanfland (1982)

robbery

Eugene, Oregon

1978–1981

2.67 mi

no age relationship

LeBeau (1987a)

rape

San Diego

1971–1975

2.5 mi

geometric mean; 

Manhattan geometry

LeBeau (1987a)

serial rape

San Diego

1971–1975

1.77 mi

geometric mean; 

Manhattan geometry

LeBeau (1987a)

nonserial rape

San Diego

1971–1975

3.5 mi

geometric mean

LeBeau (1992)

serial rape & related 

crime

San Diego

1971–1975

25.88/1.89/0.52/3.33 km 

(4 serial rapists)

attempts, sex–related 

crimes, & burglaries

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 7.1   Journey–to–Crime Research (Continued)

Source

Crime

Location

Year

Crime Trip Distance

Comments

Normandeau (1968)

robbery

Philadelphia

1.57 mi; 33% within home 

census tract

mobility triangles

Pettiway (1995)

crack cocaine drug 

buys

Philadelphia

45%/64% < 0.5 mi 

(white/black); 55%/77% < 
0.5 mi (male/female)

1.0/0.73 mi white/black; 

0.9/0.46 mi male/female

Pope  (1980)

burglary

6 California urban 

areas

52% < 1 mi

Pyle (1974)

rape

Akron

1972

1.34 mi

Pyle (1976)

crime against the 

person

Cleveland

61% within home census tract

Pyle (1976)

property crime

Cleveland

48% within home census tract

Rand (1986)

total of 8 crimes

Philadelphia

1968–1975

30.77% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Rand (1986)

criminal homicide

Philadelphia

1968–1975

53.13% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Rand (1986)

rape

Philadelphia

1968–1975

53.13% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Rand (1986)

robbery

Philadelphia

1968–1975

31.87% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Rand (1986)

aggravated assault

Philadelphia

1968–1975

38.60% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Rand (1986)

burglary

Philadelphia

1968–1975

42.02% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Rand (1986)

larceny

Philadelphia

1968–1975

14.77% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Rand (1986)

vehicle theft

Philadelphia

1968–1975

23.05% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Rand (1986)

simple assault

Philadelphia

1968–1975

39.41% within home census 

tract

juvenile offenders; 

mobility triangles

Reiss (1967)

Part I & Part II 

offences

Seattle

1965

not likely to be in home census 

tract

Rengert & Wasilchick 

(1985)

suburban burglary

Delaware Co.

52% < 5 mi; 71% 

unemployed; 40% employed

work & recreation site 

directional biases

Reppetto (1976)

robbery

Boston

0.6 mi; 90% < 1.5 mi

Reppetto (1976)

residential burglary

Boston

0.5 mi; 93% < 1.5 mi

Rhodes & Conly 

(1981)

rape

Washington, D.C.

1974

1.15 mi; 0.73 mi median; 62% 

< 1 mi

wheel distance

Rhodes & Conly 

(1981)

robbery

Washington, D.C.

1974

2.10 mi; 1.62 mi median; 37% 

< 1 mi

wheel distance

Rhodes & Conly 

(1981)

burglary

Washington, D.C.

1974

1.62 mi; 1.20 mi median; 47% 

< 1 mi

wheel distance

Rossmo & Baeza 

(1998)

serial rape

New York City

1984–1992

2.5 mi (residence); 1.0 mi 

(anchor point)

Sapp  et  al.  (1994)

serial  arson

U.S.

27.1% < 0.5 mi; 56.8% < 1 mi; 

77.1% < 2 mi; 81.2% < 5 mi; 
86.6% < 10 mi

95.1% acquainted with 

crime area; 60.8% walked

Shaw (1998)

sex murder

U.K.

2.4 mi / 1.0 mi median 

(encounter site) 2.2 mi / 1.0 
mi median (body dump site)

25% in offender’s home 

85% < 9.5 km

Suttles (1968)

Chicago

65% within home area

juvenile offenders

Topalin (1992)

serial rape

London area

1980s

2.81 mi; 20% in or close to 

home 

0–27 mi range; first 

convicted offence

Turner (1969)

assault & vandalism

Philadelphia

1960

0.4 mi; 75% < 1 mi; 87% < 2 

mi

0–23 mi range; juvenile 

offenders

Waller & Okihiro 

(1978)

burglary

Toronto

50% < 0.5 mi

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

Table 7.1   Journey–to–Crime Research (Continued)

Source

Crime

Location

Year

Crime Trip Distance

Comments

Warren et al. (1995)

serial rape

U.S.

3.14 mi; 1.66/4.93 mi average 

closest/furthest (local 
offenders, travel < 20 mi)

rituals, restraints, 

burglary, all indicate 
further travel

White (1932)

violent crime

Indianapolis

1930

0.85 mi

White (1932)

property crime

Indianapolis

1930

1.72 mi

White (1932)

manslaughter

Indianapolis

1930

0.11 mi

White (1932)

rape

Indianapolis

1930

1.52 mi

White (1932)

robbery

Indianapolis

1930

2.14 mi

White (1932)

assault

Indianapolis

1930

0.91 mi

White (1932)

burglary

Indianapolis

1930

1.76 mi

White (1932)

embezzlement

Indianapolis

1930

2.79 mi

White (1932)

auto theft

Indianapolis

1930

3.43 mi

White (1932)

larceny

Indianapolis

1930

1.53/1.42 mi (grand/petty 

larceny)

Wolfgang (1958)

homicide

Philadelphia

50%+ within home of 

offender or victim

37

NFA

 means no fixed address, and 

n

/

k

, not known. Unless otherwise specified, the figures in the 

Crime Trip Distance

 column refer to mean journey-to-crime distance.

From Rossmo, D.K. (1995b). Multivariate spatial profiles as a tool in crime investigation. In C.R. Block, M. Dabdoub, & S. Fregly (Eds.). 

Crime analysis through computer

mapping 

(pp. 65-97).

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. Used with permission.

3.

37

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

© 2000 by CRC Press LLC

7.2 Environmental Criminology

Environmental criminology is interested in the interactions between people
and what surrounds them (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1998). Crime is
viewed as the product of potential offenders and their immediate and distal
setting. “Environmental criminologists set out to use the geographic imagi-
nation in concert with the sociological imagination to describe, understand,
and control criminal events” (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981c, p. 21).
Their research is distinguished from the earlier ecological work of the Chicago
School by this concern with the environment and by a change in focus from
offender to criminal event. The field is multidisciplinary, its threads derived
from human ecology, environmental psychology, behavioural geography, and
the cognitive sciences.

Traditionally, the main interest of criminological positivism has been

the offender, and much effort has gone into studying their backgrounds,
peer influences, criminal careers, and the effects of deterrence. This focus
has ignored the other components of crime — the victim, the criminal law,
and the crime setting (Jeffery, 1977). Crime setting or place, the “where
and when” of the criminal act, makes up what Brantingham and Branting-
ham call the fourth dimension of crime, the primary concern of environ-
mental criminology.

Research in this area has taken a broad approach by including opera-

tional, perceptual, behavioural, social, psychological, legal, cultural, and geo-
graphic settings in its analyses. Micro, meso, and macrolevels have all been
examined, and future research efforts will likely attempt a theoretical syn-
thesis (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1981c, 1984, 1998). One of environ-
mental criminology’s major interests, the study of the dimensions of crime
at the microspatial level, has led to useful findings in the area of crime
prevention (see, for example, R. V. Clarke, 1992, 1997). Other projects include
the analyses of crime trips (Rhodes & Conly, 1981), efforts to understand
target and victim selections through opportunities for crime (Brantingham
& Brantingham, 1981c), crime prevention initiatives, notably crime preven-
tion through environmental design (CPTED) (Jeffery, 1977; Taylor, Gottfred-
son, & Brower, 1980; Wood, 1981), studies of shopping mall crime
(Brantingham, Brantingham, & Wong, 1990), proposals for rapid transit
security (Brantingham, Brantingham, & Wong, 1991; Buckley, 1996; Felson,
1989), and the analysis of patterns of fugitive migration (Rossmo, 1987;
Rossmo & Routledge, 1990).

Various theoretical approaches have been identified within the environ-

mental criminology field, including the consequence model, contextual the-
ory, event mobility model, human ecology, pattern theory, rational choice
theory, routine activity theory, and strategic analysis (Brantingham & Brant-