Dots versus density: the impact of crime mapping techniques on perception of safety, police performance and neighbourhood quality

ABSTRACT

President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing advised law enforcement agencies to ‘[e]stablish a culture of transparency and accountability in order to build public trust and legitimacy’ (2015, p. 12). Such transparency and accountability may be promoted through increased public access to crime data and measures of police activity. The inherently geographic nature of crime has made online maps one of the more popular strategies for disseminating this information to the public. As more agencies deliver crime maps on their own, or hosted websites, it becomes important for social scientists to evaluate how these communications affect public perceptions. Crime mapping is a complex process requiring many decisions. This includes choices about the type of crime to include or exclude, the type of map used, and numerous design features for the map itself. The field of critical cartography argues that all of these decisions have the potential to shape perceptions about a given geographic location, the people living there, and, in the present context, the people charged with maintaining public safety in the area. This study investigates whether different types of maps (i.e. dot vs. density) affect individual perceptions of safety, police performance and neighbourhood quality. Results indicate that the type of crime map viewed does alter perceptions, illustrating a need for careful and consistent decision-making when preparing crime maps for public access.

KEYWORDS:

• Crime mapping
• public perceptions
• fear of crime
• law enforcement

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The interaction terms were as follows: perceived safety [F (1,200) = .08, p > .25], victimisation risk [F (1,200) = .10, p > .25], residential cohesion [F (1,200) = .06, p > .25], attribution of responsibility [F (1,200) = .15, p > .25], neighbourhood quality [F (1,200) = 1.77, p = .19], perceived home value (thousands) [F (1,198) = 1.36, p = .25], police performance [F (1,194) = .02, p > .25], safety precautions [F (1,200) = .00, p > .25], participation in crime control [F (1,200) = .00, p > .25], time on map (seconds) [F (1,196) = .48, p > .25], and estimated incidents [F (1,200) = 1.45, p = .23].

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by a Faculty Development Grant from Portland State University.