ABSTRACT
This book has investigated a number of issues with regard to spatially referenced crime data. The general result of this research is that spatially referenced crime data has a set of rather significant issues that may impact the reliability of inference. This should come as no surprise because all data have their limitations, but some of the most common assumptions we make in the spatial crime analysis literature appear to cause problems within their respective contexts. In short: crime rates are problematic; alternative measures of crime (location quotients) are in use but not widespread; ecological stability may only be present at microspatial units of analysis; many of the aggregations we take for granted in research have implications for spatial patterns; and there is still much spatial heterogeneity within the “small” spatial unit of analysis most commonly employed, namely the census tract.
