03364nam a2200205   4500001000700000100004100007101000800048200018600056210007900242215002000321300038100341330226100722606002802983606003003011606002303041606002403064606002303088606001903111700002803130393767  a20160301d2015       y0pory50      ba  aeng  aIdentifying risky places for crimebRecurso eletrónicoean analysis of the criminogenic spatiotemporal influences of landscape features on street robberiesfYasemin Irvin-Erickson  a[Rockville, MD]cNational Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)d2015  a1 CD-ROMd12 cm  aDissertation submitted to the Graduate School-Newark Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of  Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in the School of Criminal Justice (under direction of Joel M. Caplan) [and to] the U.S. Department of Justice (Award nr. 2012-IJ-CX-0005). Ficheiro de 4,52 MB em formato PDF (161 p.).  aAbstract. Acknowledgements. Table of contents. List of tables. List of figures. Introduction. Chapter 1: conceptual framework. 1.1. Why location matters. 1.2. Predecessors of contextual crime analysis. 1.3. Determinants of vulnerability to crime risk at micro places. Crime opportunities and risky places. Risky places and risky times. Risk terrain modeling. 1.4. Determinants of street robbery risk at micro places. Street robberies and cash economies. Street robberies and public transit stations. Street robberies and illegal markets. Street robberies, public housing, and schools. 1.5. Research questions and hypotheses. Chapter 2: study setting and data sources. 2.1. Study setting. 2.2. Data sources. Dependent variable. Independent variables. Chapter 3: the individual temporal criminogenic influences of landscape features on street robberies. 3.1. Testing hypothesis #1: do spatial extents of criminogenic influences change temporally? Choosing the spatial extents for operationalizing the spatial influences of landscape features on street robberies. Findings. Summary. 3.2. Testing hypothesis #2: Do criminogenic landscape features for street robberies vary temporally? Digitizing and testing the spatial influence of criminogenic features of the landscape with the selected spatial extents. Findings. Summary. 3.3. Testing hypothesis #3: Do weights of the criminogenic spatial influence of landscape features for street robberies vary temporally? Calculating the relative spatial influence and weight of each criminogenic risk factor. Findings. Summary. Chapter 4: the combined temporal criminogenic influences of landscape features on street robberies. 4.1. Testing Hypothesis #4 and #5: Do street robberies emerge at risky places of combined criminogenic influences at different times of the day and different days of the week? Producing composite risk terrain maps with the weighted risk map layers and testing the statistical significance of the models. Findings. Summary. Chapter 5: overview and discussion of findings. Chapter 6: conclusion. 6.1. Implications for environmental criminology. 6.2. Implications for risk assessment. 6.3. Implications for crime prevention. 6.4. Avenues for future research and concluding remarks. References.  aMEIO AMBIENTE E O CRIME  aURBANISMO E CRIMINALIDADE  aGEOGRAFIA CRIMINAL  aMAPEAMENTO DO CRIME  aANÁLISE CRIMINAL  aESTADOS UNIDOS  aIRVIN-ERICKSONbYasemin