M4 - Crime Analysis
I am one of the discussion leader for this module as I'm very familiar with the use of kernel density analysis. I had used this to compute for water table of are area of interest based on data points of water table in a series of sampling area.
For this module, we focused on Chicago's Homicide Crime Data for 2017 and then did a statistical comparison for 2018. We used 3 different types of hotspot analysis named, Grid-based Thematic mapping, Kernel density and Local Moran's I.
Grid-Based Thematic Mapping
We had spatially combined grid data over crime data and then summarized the numbers per grid cell. We only selected the top 20% of the overall grids with highest point count per grid.
Kernel Density
For this analysis we did not need a bounding area to spatially join our crime rates as it calculates the density of features in an area. This considers the occurrences of crimes that could put additional weight to an area when producing a hotspot for a certain radius or cell size.
Local Moran's I
Hotspot
Technique |
Total
Area (mi2) in 2017 |
No.
of 2018 homicides within 2017 hotspot |
% of
all 2018 homicides within 2017 hotspot |
Crime
density (2018 homicides within 2017 hotspot per mi2) |
Grid
Overlay |
15
sq mi |
159 |
27% |
10.6 |
Kernel
Density |
25 sq mi |
256 |
43% |
10.2 |
Local
Moran’s I |
35
sq mi |
270 |
46% |
7.7 |
In conclusion, I would choose the Kernel
Density analysis as the most efficient. One is that the combination of the % of
all 2018 homicides within 2017 hotspots and crime density are both high in the
said method. Second, the kernel density provides a much more detail point
aggregation instead of grid coverage. Lastly, it pinpoints specific hotspot
areas where the police chief can focus his resources. The other 2 provides a
larger aggregation via grids which can be hard when the police department has
limited resources.
Comments
Post a Comment