| Literature DB >> 35692614 |
Tongxin Chen1, Kate Bowers2, Di Zhu3, Xiaowei Gao1, Tao Cheng1.
Abstract
Crime changes have been reported as a result of human routine activity shifting due to containment policies, such as stay-at-home (SAH) mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the way in which the manifestation of crime in both space and time is affected by dynamic human activities has not been explored in depth in empirical studies. Here, we aim to quantitatively measure the spatio-temporal stratified associations between crime patterns and human activities in the context of an unstable period of the ever-changing socio-demographic backcloth. We propose an analytical framework to detect the stratified associations between dynamic human activities and crimes in urban areas. In a case study of San Francisco, United States, we first identify human activity zones (HAZs) based on the similarity of daily footfall signatures on census block groups (CBGs). Then, we examine the spatial associations between crime spatial distributions at the CBG-level and the HAZs using spatial stratified heterogeneity statistical measurements. Thirdly, we use different temporal observation scales around the effective date of the SAH mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic to investigate the dynamic nature of the associations. The results reveal that the spatial patterns of most crime types are statistically significantly associated with that of human activities zones. Property crime exhibits a higher stratified association than violent crime across all temporal scales. Further, the strongest association is obtained with the eight-week time span centred around the SAH order. These findings not only enhance our understanding of the relationships between urban crime and human activities, but also offer insights into that tailored crime intervention strategies need to consider human activity variables.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Crime pattern analysis; Human activity; Social sensing; Spatio-temporal stratified association
Year: 2022 PMID: 35692614 PMCID: PMC9168357 DOI: 10.1007/s43762-022-00041-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Urban Sci ISSN: 2730-6852
Fig. 1Analytical framework for detecting the spatio-temporal stratified association between human activities and crime patterns
Fig. 2Clustering of temporal footfall patterns (top) and the corresponding human activity zones (bottom). The first-level clusters of temporal footfall patterns are illustrated as colored signatures for each TO. The bold center line for each signature cluster denotes its variation characteristic of human activities; Second-level clusters are distinguished by the color saturation in each map of human activity zones. Then, the HAZs in each TO are generated by the combination of first-level characterized by human activity pattern and second-level characterized by human activity volume with total zone numbers (m1 x m2), i.e., 9 (3×3), 12 (4×3), 9 (3×3), 15 (5×3), 12 (4×3), 12 (4×3)
Fig. 3Spatial distribution of crime in different types at CBG-level during the sixth observation timespan (TO6) (Feb. 7 to Apr. 30)
The results of STSH index (Q statistics) between crime distribution and HAZs across six TOs in 2020
| 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 6 weeks | 8 weeks | 10 weeks | 12 weeks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.292*** | 0.418*** | 0.292*** | 0.446*** | 0.408*** | 0.414** | |
| 0.291*** | 0.420*** | 0.298*** | 0.455*** | 0.430*** | 0.435*** | |
| Larceny theft | 0.227*** | 0.404*** | 0.290*** | 0.430*** | 0.420*** | 0.426*** |
| Vandalism | 0.209*** | 0.300*** | 0.293*** | 0.397*** | 0.370*** | 0.362*** |
| Motor vehicle theft | 0.086*** | 0.102** | 0.057 | 0.184*** | 0.182*** | 0.194*** |
| Residential burglary | 0.018 | 0.024 | 0.042 | 0.060 | 0.064* | 0.123** |
| None-residential burglary | 0.165*** | 0.305*** | 0.226*** | 0.416*** | 0.391*** | 0.399*** |
| 0.125*** | 0.223*** | 0.161*** | 0.288*** | 0.225*** | 0.225*** | |
| Assault | 0.085*** | 0.204*** | 0.142*** | 0.251*** | 0.201*** | 0.214*** |
| Robbery | 0.111*** | 0.159*** | 0.150*** | 0.253*** | 0.221*** | 0.233*** |
| Domestic violence | 0.036* | 0.056* | 0.050* | 0.111*** | 0.061* | 0.047 |
* p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
The results of STSH index (Q statistics) between crime distribution and HAZs across six TOs in 2019
| 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 6 weeks | 8 weeks | 10 weeks | 12 weeks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.455*** | 0.500*** | 0.455*** | 0.507*** | 0.524*** | 0.548*** | |
| 0.448*** | 0.499*** | 0.469*** | 0.500*** | 0.539*** | 0.557*** | |
| Larceny theft | 0.414*** | 0.479*** | 0.467*** | 0.487*** | 0.518*** | 0.552*** |
| Vandalism | 0.254*** | 0.426*** | 0.388*** | 0.439*** | 0.423*** | 0.428*** |
| Motor vehicle theft | 0.086 | 0.118*** | 0.139*** | 0.203*** | 0.261*** | 0.288*** |
| Residential burglary | 0.087 | 0.105** | 0.083 | 0.108 | 0.097 | 0.082 |
| None-residential burglary | 0.254*** | 0.310*** | 0.316*** | 0.309*** | 0.423*** | 0.402*** |
| 0.232*** | 0.301*** | 0.244*** | 0.332*** | 0.282*** | 0.322*** | |
| Assault | 0.210*** | 0.258*** | 0.232*** | 0.309*** | 0.243*** | 0.267*** |
| Robbery | 0.209*** | 0.336*** | 0.276*** | 0.386*** | 0.354*** | 0.417*** |
| Domestic violence | 0.076* | 0.120*** | 0.076 | 0.127*** | 0.144*** | 0.190*** |
* p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Fig. 4Linear regression of STSH index (Q statistics) between 2019 and 2020 (The shadow area represents confident interval of 0.99)