Given that much street crime concentrates near businesses, a question is how the business composition of census blocks, not just specific businesses, impacts the spatial mobility of offenders and victims. The study uses data from Dallas, TX, from 2014 to 2020. The results showed that crimes occur farther from the home for offenders than for victims. Furthermore, locations with more consumer-facing businesses are targeted more often by offenders, and the mix of these businesses is particularly attractive for offenders. Finally, the results also showed that the presence of more consumer-facing businesses in the surrounding 400 m buffer increased the likelihood of offenders targeting a location for crime, regardless of the features of the block itself.
AckermanJ. M.RossmoD. K. (2014). How far to travel? A multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 237–262.
2.
BernascoW. (2010). A sentimental journey to crime: Effects of residential history on crime location choice. Criminology, 48(2), 389–416.
3.
BernascoW.BlockR. L. (2009). Where offenders choose to attack: A discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago. Criminology, 47(1), 93–130.
4.
BernascoW.BlockR. L.RuiterS. (2013). Go where the money is: Modeling street robbers’ location choices. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(1), 119–143.
5.
BernascoW.KooistraT. (2010). Effects of residential history on commercial robbers’ crime location choices. European Journal of Criminology, 7(4), 251–265.
6.
BernascoW.RuiterS.BlockR. (2017). Do street robbery location choices vary over time of day or day of week? A test in Chicago. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(2), 244–275.
7.
BoessenA.HippJ. R. (2015). Close-ups and the scale of ecology: Land uses and the geography of social context and crime. Criminology, 53(3), 399–426.
8.
BrantinghamP. J.BrantinghamP. J. (2016). The geometry of crime and crime pattern theory. In WortleyR.TownsleyM. (Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (pp. 117–135).
9.
BrantinghamP. L.BrantinghamP. J. (1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 5–26.
10.
CarterC.VandellK. (2020). Store location in shopping centers: Theory and estimates. Journal of Real Estate Research, 27(3), 237–266.
11.
ChamberlainA. W.BoggessL. N. (2016). Relative difference and burglary location: Can ecological characteristics of a Burglar’s home neighborhood predict offense location?Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(6), 872–906.
12.
ColemanM.LaCour-LittleM.VandellK. D. (2008). Subprime lending and the housing bubble: Tail wags dog?Journal of Housing Economics, 17(4), 272–290.
13.
GolledgeR. G.StimsonR. J. (1997). Spatial behavior: A geographic perspective. The Guilford Press.
14.
GriewankA.WaltherA. (2008). Evaluating derivatives: principles and techniques of algorithmic differentiation. Society for industrial and applied mathematics.
15.
HippJ. R.HodgenC. (2024). The ecology of business environments and consequences for crime. Criminology, 62(4), 859–891.
16.
HippJ. R.KimY. A. (2019). Explaining the temporal and spatial dimensions of robbery: Differences across measures of the physical and social environment. Journal of criminal justice, 60, 1–12.
17.
HippJ. R.KimY.-a.WoJ. (2021). Micro-scale, meso-scale, macro-scale, and temporal scale: Comparing the relative importance for robbery risk in New York City. Justice Quarterly, 38(5), 767–791.
18.
Infogroup. (2015). Reference USA historical business data, edited by Infogroup. Reference USA.
19.
JacobsJ. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
20.
KaneK.HippJ. R.KimJ. H. (2017). Analyzing accessibility using parcel data: Is there still an access-space tradeoff in long beach, California?The Professional Geographer, 69(3), 486–503.
21.
KimY.-A.WoJ.HippJ. R. (2023). Estimating age-graded effects of businesses on crime in place. Justice Quarterly, 40(3), 403–426.
22.
KubrinC. E.HippJ. R. (2016). Do fringe banks create fringe neighborhoods? Examining the spatial relationship between fringe banking and neighborhood crime rates. Justice Quarterly, 33(5), 755–784.
23.
KuralarasanK.BernascoW. (2021). Location choice of snatching offenders in Chennai City. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 38(3), 673–696.
24.
LammersM.MentingB.RuiterS.BernascoW. I. M. (2015). Biting once, twice: The influence of prior on subsequent crime location choice. Criminology, 53(3), 309–329.
25.
LiuY.SuiZ.KangC.GaoY. (2014). Uncovering patterns of inter-urban trip and spatial interaction from social media check-in data. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86026.
26.
LongD.LiuL. (2021). Do migrant and native robbers target different places?ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(11), 1–16.
27.
LongD.LiuL.FengJ.ZhouS.JingF. (2018). Assessing the influence of prior on subsequent street robbery location choices: A case study in ZG City, China. Sustainability, 10(6), 1818.
28.
LongD.LiuL.XuM.FengJ.ChenJ.HeL. (2021). Ambient population and surveillance cameras: The guardianship role in street robbers’ crime location choice. Cities, 115, Article 103223.
29.
MentingB.LammersM.RuiterS.BernascoW. (2019). The influence of activity space and visiting frequency on crime location choice: Findings from an online self-report survey. The British Journal of Criminology, 60, 303–322.
30.
MichaudP. (2023). Should we stay or should we go? A critical review of journey-to-crime research. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 38(4), 914–930.
31.
PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP.PiqueroA. (2006). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866.
32.
PizarroJ. M.CorsaroN.YuS.-s. V. (2007). Journey to crime and victimization: An application of routine activities theory and environmental criminology to homicide. Victims & Offenders, 2(4), 375–394.
33.
RossmoD. K. (2000). Geographic profiling. CRC Press.
34.
RowanZ. R.ApplebyS.McGloinJ. M. (2022). Situating crime pattern theory into the explanation of co-offending: Considering area-level convergence spaces. The British Journal of Criminology, 62(3), 681–698.
35.
RuiterS. (2017). Crime location choice: State of the art and avenues for future research. In BernascoW. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of offender decision making (pp. 398–420). Oxford University Press.
36.
SchönfelderS.AxhausenK. W. (2003). Activity spaces: Measures of social exclusion?Transport Policy, 10(4), 273–286.
37.
SiminiF.GonzálezM. C.MaritanA.BarabásiA.-L. (2012). A universal model for mobility and migration patterns. Nature, 484(7392), 96–100.
38.
SongG.BernascoW.LiuL.XiaoL.ZhouS.LiaoQ. (2019). Crime feeds on legal activities: Daily mobility flows help to explain thieves’ target location choices. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(4), 831–854.
39.
SteenbeekW.VölkerB.FlapH.van OortF. (2012). Local businesses as attractors or preventers of neighborhood disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(2), 213–248.
40.
SubramaniP.VadiveluN.KamathG. (2021). Enabling fast differentially private sgd via just-in-time compilation and vectorization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 26409–26421.
41.
van SleeuwenS. E. M.RuiterS.MentingB. (2018). A time for a crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(4), 538–568.
42.
van SleeuwenS. E. M.RuiterS.SteenbeekW. (2021). Right place, right time? Making crime pattern theory time-specific. Crime Science, 10(1), 2.
43.
VandeviverC.Van DaeleS.Vander BekenT. (2015). What makes long crime trips worth undertaking? Balancing costs and benefits in Burglars’ journey to crime. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 399–420.
44.
VermaR.UkkusuriS. V. (2025). What determines travel time and distance decay in spatial interaction and accessibility?Journal of Transport Geography, 122, Article 104061.
45.
XuY.SantiP.RattiC. (2021). Beyond distance decay: Discover homophily in spatially embedded social networks. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 112(2), 505–521.
