Editors’ Introduction: Empirical Evidence on the Relevance of Place in Criminology

Abstract

For most of the last century criminologists have focused their understanding of crime on individuals and communities (Nettler 1978; Sherman 1995; Weisburd et al. 2009). In the case of individuals, criminologists have sought to understand why certain people as opposed to others become criminals (e.g. see Akers 1973; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Hirschi 1969; Raine 1993), or to explain why certain offenders become involved in criminal activity at different stages of the life course or cease involvement at other stages (e.g., see Moffitt 1993; Sampson and Laub 1993). In the case of communities, criminologists have often tried to explain why certain types of crime or different levels of criminality are found in some communities as contrasted with others (e.g., see Agnew 1999; Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Sampson and Groves 1989; Shaw and McKay 1942) or how community-level variables, such as relative deprivation, low socioeconomic status, or lack of economic opportunity may affect individual criminality (e.g. see Agnew 1992; Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Merton 1938; Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1967). In most cases, research on communities has focused on the ‘‘macro’’ level, often studying states (Loftin and Hill 1974), cities (Baumer et al. 1998), and neighborhoods (Sampson 1985; Bursik and Grasmick 1993). While concern with the relationship between crime and place goes back to the founding generations of modern criminology (Guerry 1833; Quetelet 1842), the ‘‘micro’’ approach to places emerged only in the last few decades (e.g. see Brantingham and Brantingham