This study examines the ecological reliability, convergent validity and ecological stability of neighbourhood (dis)organizational processes measured by means of two methods: inhabitant surveys and the so-called key informant analysis technique. Considering that ecological processes play a major role in many contemporary criminological theories and research, it is vital to take into account methodological challenges and to question the reliability, validity and stability of the measures reflecting these underlying processes. (Dis)organizational processes are predominantly measured by means of questionnaires surveying neighbourhood inhabitants. To yield ecologically reliable and valid measures this approach requires large numbers of respondents. In this study we analyse the relationships between ecological measures of neighbourhood processes based on surveys of inhabitants versus key informants. The findings suggest that key informants can provide reliable, valid and stable measures of (dis)organizational neighbourhood processes. Therefore, the key informant analysis technique is an essential complementary, or even substitutive, method in the measurement of neighbourhood processes; shared survey-method variance is eliminated and it is possible to survey fewer key informants than inhabitants to obtain reliable and valid information on social trust and disorder. Nevertheless, this method is not suitable for measuring all neighbourhood processes, such as informal social control. Therefore, outstanding challenges and avenues for future research are discussed as well.
BruinsmaGJNJohnsonSJ (2018) Environmental criminology: History, scope and state of the art. In BruinsmaGJNJohnsonSJ (eds) The Oxford Handbook on Environmental Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1–31.
2.
Brunton-SmithISturgisPLeckieG (2018) How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus in judgments about community cohesion and willingness to intervene. Criminology56(3): 608–637.
3.
BungeM (2003) Emergence and Convergence: Qualitative Novelty and the Unity of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
4.
BursikRJGrasmickHG (1993) Neighborhoods and Crime. New York: Lexington.
5.
CampbellDT (1955) The informant in quantitative research. American Journal of Sociology60(4): 339–342.
6.
CampbellDTFiskeDW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin56(2): 81–105.
7.
EarlsFJRaudenbushSWReissAJSampsonRJ (2005) Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN): Systematic Social Observation, 1995. ICPSR 13578-v1. Documentation. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. URL (accessed 23 February 2021): http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR13578.v1.
8.
FullerWA (1987) Measurement Error Models. New York: Wiley.
9.
GerellM (2015) Collective efficacy, neighborhood and geographical units of analysis: Findings from a case study of Swedish residential neighborhoods. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research21(3): 385–406.
10.
GerellM (2017) Neighborhoods without community: Collective efficacy and crime in Malmö, Sweden. Doctoral dissertation, Malmö University, Sweden.
11.
GroffER (2018) Do we really need collective social process to understand why crime occurs and offenders commit crime? In: BruinsmaGJNJohnsonSD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, 105–118.
12.
GrubesicTHWallaceDChamberlainAWNelsonJR (2018) Using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for remotely sensing physical disorder in neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning169: 148–159.
13.
HardynsWPauwelsLJRHeylenB (2018) Within-individual change in social support, perceived collective efficacy, perceived disorder and fear of crime: Results from a two-wave panel study. British Journal of Criminology58(5): 1254–1270.
14.
HardynsWSnaphaanTPauwelsLJR (2019) Crime concentrations and micro places: An empirical test of the ‘law of crime concentration at places’ in Belgium. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology52(3): 390–410. doi: 10.1177/0004865818807243.
15.
HardynsWVynckeVPauwelsLWillemsS (2015) Study protocol: SWING – social capital and well-being in neighborhoods in Ghent. International Journal for Equity in Health14, 36: 1–10. doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0163-1.
16.
HardynsWSnaphaanTPauwelsLJRVynckeVWillemsS (2019) A multilevel analysis of collective efficacy, neighborhood disorder, and individual social capital on avoidance behavior. Crime & Delinquency65(7): 994–1021. doi: 10.1177/0011128718788042.
17.
HeckRHThomasSLTabataL (2010) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling with IBM SPSS. New York: Routledge.
18.
HippJR (2016) Collective efficacy: How is it conceptualized, how is it measured, and does it really matter for understanding perceived neighborhood crime and disorder?Journal of Criminal Justice46: 32–44.
19.
HoebenEMSteenbeekWPauwelsLJR (2018) Measuring disorder: Observer bias in systematic social observations at streets and neighborhoods. Journal of Quantitative Criminology34(1): 221–249.
20.
KendallPLLazarsfeldPF (1950) Problems of survey analysis. In: MertonRKLazarsfeldPF (eds) Continuities in Social Research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 133–196.
KubrinCEWoJC (2016) Social disorganization theory’s greatest challenge: Linking structural characteristics to crime in socially disorganized communities. In: PiqueroAR (ed.) The Handbook of Criminological Theory. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 121–136.
23.
KurtzLR (1984) Evaluating Chicago Sociology: A Guide to the Literature, with an Annotated Bibliography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
MarcoMGraciaETomásJMLópez-QuílezA (2015) Assessing neighborhood disorder: Validation of a three-factor observational scale. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context7(2): 81–89.
25.
MarkusKALinC (2010) Construct validity. In: SalkindNJ (ed.) Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 229–233.
26.
MastrofskiSDParksRBMcCluskeyJD (2010) Systematic social observation in criminology. In: PiqueroARWeisburdD (eds) Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. Cham: Springer, 225–247.
27.
MazerolleLWickesRMcBroomJ (2010) Community variations in violence: The role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency47(1): 3–30.
MittalGYagnikKBGargMKrishnanNC (2016) SpotGarbage: Smartphone app to detect garbage using deep learning. In: UbiComp ‘16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. Heidelberg, Germany, September, 940–945. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971648.2971731
30.
OberwittlerDWikströmP-OH (2009) Why smaller is better: Advancing the study of the role of behavioral contexts in crime causation. In: WeisburdDBernascoWBruinsmaGJN (eds) Putting Crime in Its Place: Units of Analysis in Geographic Criminology. New York: Springer Science Business Media, 36–60.
31.
OdgersCLCaspiABatesCJSampsonRJMoffittTE (2012) Systematic social observation of children’s neighborhoods using Google Street View: A reliable and cost-effective method. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry53(10): 1009–1017. URL (accessed 23 February 2021): https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02565.x.
32.
ParkREBurgessEW (1929) Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
ParkREBurgessEWMcKenzieRD (1967 [1925]) The City: Suggestions for Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
PauwelsLHardynsW (2009) Measuring community (dis)organizational processes through key informant analysis. European Journal of Criminology6(5): 401–417. doi: 10.1177/1477370809337878.
35.
RaudenbushSWSampsonRJ (1999) Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology29(1): 1–41.
36.
ReisigMDCancinoJM (2004) Incivilities in nonmetropolitan communities: The effects of structural constraints, social conditions, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice32: 15–29.
37.
RengertGFLockwoodB (2009) Geographical units of analysis and the analysis of crime. In: WeisburdDBernascoWBruinsmaGJN (eds) Putting Crime in Its Place: Units of Analysis in Geographic Criminology. New York: Springer Science Business Media, 109–122.
38.
SampsonRJ (2012) Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
SampsonRJGrovesWB (1989) Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology94(4): 774–802.
40.
SampsonRJRaudenbushSW (1999) Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology105(3): 603–651.
41.
SampsonRJRaudenbushSWEarlsF (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science277(5328): 918–924.
42.
SchmidtFLHunterJE (1999) Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence27(3): 183–198.
43.
ShawCRMcKayHD (1942) Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
SnaphaanTHardynsW (2019) Environmental criminology in the big data era. European Journal of Criminology. doi: 10.1177/1477370819877753
46.
SnijdersTABBoskerRJ (2012) Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. Los Angeles: SAGE.
47.
SteenbeekW (2011) Social and physical disorder: How community, business presence and entrepreneurs influence disorder in Dutch neighborhoods. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
48.
SudmanSBradburnNM (1974) Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and Synthesis. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
49.
SukelMRudinacSWorringM (2019) Multimodal classification of urban micro-events. In: MM ’19: Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. Nice, France, October, 1455–1463. URL (accessed 23 February 2021): https://doi.org/10.1145/3343031.3350967.
50.
TaylorRB (1999) The incivilities thesis: Theory, measurement, and policy. In: LangworthyRH (ed.) Measuring What Matters. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 65–88.
51.
ThorndikeEL (1920) A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology4(1): 25–29.
52.
TibyEOlssonM (1997) Lokala problembilder – Nyckelinformanters syn på brott, sociala problem och åtgärder i åtta förorter till Stockholm. Licentiatsuppsats, Stockholms universitet, Sweden.
53.
TourangeauRRipsLJRasinskiK (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
VandenbergRJLanceCE (2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organisational research. Organisational Research Methods3(1): 4–70.
55.
WikströmP-O (2007) The social ecology of crime. The role of the environment in crime causation. In: SchneiderHJ (ed.) Internationales Handbuch der Kriminologie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 333–357.
56.
WikströmP-OTreiberK (2016) Situational theory. The importance of interactions and action mechanisms. In: PiqueroA (ed.) The Handbook of Criminological Theory. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 415–443.
57.
ZallerJFeldmanS (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science36(3): 579–616.
58.
ZhangLNMessnerSFLiuJH (2007) A multilevel analysis of the risk of household burglary in the city of Tianjin, China. British Journal of Criminology47: 918–937.
59.
ZhangLNMessnerSFLiuJHZhuoYA (2009) Guanxi and fear of crime in contemporary urban China. British Journal of Criminology49: 472–490.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
