Author
Listed:
- Hanlin Zhou
- Lin Liu
- Jue Wang
- Kathi Wilson
- Minxuan Lan
- Xin Gu
Abstract
Perceived safety of the built environment—a cognitive assessment different from emotional fear of crime—might affect the number of potential crime victims in an area and thus affect crime opportunities. The perceived safety derived from street view imagery has propelled scholars to examine its relationship with crime. The literature, however, has not addressed the related geographic scale variability issue; that is, the choice of the geographic analytical units might affect the relationship between area-based perceived safety and crime. This study explores how the relationships between street-view-derived perceived safety and both street thefts and street robberies vary by different spatial scales in Cincinnati. Results of negative binomial models show that perceived safety is positively associated with street thefts and street robberies at both the street segment and census block levels, but is negatively associated with these crimes at the census block group level. The relationship is not statistically significant at the census tract level. This variability is explained by the different freedom of avoidance behaviors in response to perceived safety, which change by geographic scale. The research further evaluates the within variance and between variance of perceived safety at different scales. Compared to between variance, within variance is smaller at both the street segment and block levels, but larger at both the block group and tract levels. This variability can be a source of model instability across multiple geographical scales. In short, the multiscale assessment shows that larger spatial units like the census tract are unsuitable for perceived safety–crime analysis.
Suggested Citation
Hanlin Zhou & Lin Liu & Jue Wang & Kathi Wilson & Minxuan Lan & Xin Gu, 2024.
"A Multiscale Assessment of the Impact of Perceived Safety from Street View Imagery on Street Crime,"
Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 114(1), pages 69-90, January.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:raagxx:v:114:y:2024:i:1:p:69-90
DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2023.2249975
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:raagxx:v:114:y:2024:i:1:p:69-90. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/raag .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.