街头抢劫者前犯罪经历对其后作案地选择的影响

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.05.010

地理科学进展 ›› 2020, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (5): 815-828.doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2020.05.010

街头抢劫者前犯罪经历对其后作案地选择的影响

龙冬平¹, 柳林^1,^2,^*(), 陈建国¹, 肖露子¹, 宋广文¹, 徐冲¹

^1. 广州大学地理科学学院,公共安全地理信息分析中心,广州 510275
^2. 辛辛那提大学地理系,美国辛辛那提 OH 45221-0131

收稿日期:2019-05-06 修回日期:2019-09-24 出版日期:2020-05-28 发布日期:2020-07-28
通讯作者: 柳林
作者简介:龙冬平(1985— ),男,湖南邵阳人,博士,讲师,主要从事公共安全与犯罪地理研究。E-mail:longdp@gzhu.edu.cn
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(41901172);国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(41901177);国家自然科学基金青年科学基金项目(41601138);广东省自然科学基金研究团队项目(2014A-030312010);国家自然科学基金重点项目(41531178);国家重点研发计划项目(2018YFB0505500);国家重点研发计划项目(2018YFB0505503);广州市科学研究计划重点项目(201804020016)

Impact of prior crime experiences of street robbers on subsequent crime location choices

LONG Dongping¹, LIU Lin^1,^2,^*(), CHEN Jianguo¹, XIAO Luzi¹, SONG Guangwen¹, XU Chong¹

^1. School of Geographical Science, Center of GeoInformatics for Public Security, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510275, China
^2. Department of Geography, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati OH 45221-0131, Ohio, USA

Received:2019-05-06 Revised:2019-09-24 Online:2020-05-28 Published:2020-07-28
Contact: LIU Lin
Supported by:
National Natural Science Foundation of China(41901172);National Natural Science Foundation of China(41901177);National Natural Science Foundation of China(41601138);Research Team Program of Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China(2014A-030312010);Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China(41531178);National Key R&D Program of China(2018YFB0505500);National Key R&D Program of China(2018YFB0505503);Guangzhou Science and Technology Program Key Projects(201804020016)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

作案地选择是犯罪地理学的研究主题。已有的重复作案地选择的研究表明,犯罪者“前案件”作案地选择对他们“后案件”作案地选择具有影响,但以往研究关注的是先前的犯罪时间和地点对其后续作案地选择的影响,仍未检验犯罪者在“前案件”中犯罪经历的具体作用。因此,论文以中国东南沿海ZG市为例,利用街头抢劫者的抓捕数据和混合Logit模型,聚焦探析街头抢劫者先前的个体犯罪经历对他们随后的作案地选择的影响。研究发现：街头抢劫者在“前案件”中的犯罪间隔、犯罪出行和当场被捕等个体犯罪经历对其“后案件”作案地选择具有强烈的影响,即“前后案件”的犯罪间隔越临近、“前案件”犯罪出行距离越短,以及“前案件”未当场被捕,则大大增加了街头抢劫者返回到先前抢劫区域再次犯罪的可能性。并通过警察访谈和结合理论分析,发现“前案件”未当场被捕是由犯罪者当场被捕的恐惧感、警察特殊的干预方式,以及社会凝聚力和犯罪防控的相互作用而形成。研究结论可为警务部门的“事前防控”与“主动处置”提供一定的参考。

关键词: 街头抢劫者, 犯罪经历, 作案地选择, 混合Logit模型, 犯罪地理学

Abstract:

Explaining the choice of crime location is one of the central themes of crime geography. The existing research on the choice of the location where street robbers commit crimes mainly focuses on the following two aspects: analyzing the spatial pattern and influencing factors from a comprehensive perspective, and analyzing the time difference from a comparative perspective. In general, these studies not only enrich the research perspectives, but also clarify the spatiotemporal patterns and their formation mechanisms. Therefore, they have important theoretical and practical significance. The literature also shows that offenders' subsequent crime location choices are affected by their prior crime location choices. However, the published studies have focused on the influences of time and place of a previous crime, and have not yet verified the role of crime experiences of the former offense. Therefore, this study further examined the influence of the prior individual robbery experiences on the subsequent street robbery location choices by using a mixed logit model and data on arrested robbers in ZG City, China. The results suggest that the individual criminal experiences of street robbers such as the interval of crimes, criminal travel, and arrest on the spot have a strong effect on subsequent street robbery location choices, that is, a shorter time interval, a shorter distance of journey to prior crime location, and less possibility of being arrested in the act of a prior street robbery significantly increase the likelihood of a robber returning to the previous location. Finally, through police interviews and theoretical analysis, it is found that the last situation is formed by the offenders' fear of being arrested on the spot, the special ways of police intervention, as well as the social cohesion and crime prevention of communities. Therefore, the extension of the results may well provide references for the police departments' work on prevention and pre-event control and active intervention.

Key words: street robbers, crime experiences, crime location choices, mixed logit model, crime geography

龙冬平, 柳林, 陈建国, 肖露子, 宋广文, 徐冲. 街头抢劫者前犯罪经历对其后作案地选择的影响[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(5): 815-828.

LONG Dongping, LIU Lin, CHEN Jianguo, XIAO Luzi, SONG Guangwen, XU Chong. Impact of prior crime experiences of street robbers on subsequent crime location choices[J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(5): 815-828.

图/表 9

图1

图2

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

参考文献 72

[1]	Townsley M, Birks D, Bernasco W , et al. Burglar target selection: A cross-national comparison [J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2015,52(1):3-31.
[2]	Bernasco W . A sentimental journey to crime: Effects of residential history on crime location choice [J]. Criminology, 2010,48(2):389-416. doi: 10.1111/crim.2010.48.issue-2
[3]	Bernasco W, Block R, Ruiter S . Go where the money is: Modeling street robbers' location choices [J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2013,13(1):119-143.
[4]	Deakin J, Smithson H, Spencer J , et al. Taxing on the streets: Understanding the methods and process of street robbery [J]. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 2007,9(1):52-67.
[5]	徐冲, 柳林, 周素红 , 等. DP半岛街头抢劫犯罪案件热点时空模式 [J]. 地理学报, 2013,68(12):1714-1723.
	[ Xu Chong, Liu Lin, Zhou Suhong , et al. The spatio-temporal patterns of street robbery in DP Peninsula. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2013,68(12):1714-1723. ]
[6]	徐冲, 柳林, 周素红 , 等. 微观空间因素对街头抢劫影响的空间异质性: 以DP半岛为例 [J]. 地理研究, 2017,36(12):2492-2504.
	[ Xu Chong, Liu Lin, Zhou Suhong , et al. Spatial heterogeneity of micro-spatial factors' effects on street robberies: A case study of DP Peninsula. Geographical Research, 2017,36(12):2492-2504. ]
[7]	Haberman C P, Ratcliffe J H . Testing for temporally differentiated relationships among potentially criminogenic places and census block street robbery counts [J]. Criminology, 2015,53(3):457-483.
[8]	Bernasco W, Ruiter S, Block R . Do street robbery location choices vary over time of day or day of week? A test in Chicago [J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2017,54(2):244-275.
[9]	龙冬平 . 街头抢劫者作案地选择的时空特征与形成机理[D]. 广州: 中山大学, 2018.
	[ Long Dongping . Research on the spatio-temporal characteristic and formation mechanism of crime location choice of street robbers. Guangzhou, China: Sun Yat-Sen University, 2018. ]
[10]	Lammers M, Menting B, Ruiter S , et al. Biting once, twice: The influence of prior on subsequent crime location choice [J]. Criminology, 2015,53(3):309-329.
[11]	Bernasco W, Johnson S D, Ruiter S . Learning where to offend: Effects of past on future burglary locations [J]. Applied Geography, 2015,60(5):120-129.
[12]	Bernasco W, Block R . Where offenders choose to attack: A discrete choice model of robberies in Chicago [J]. Criminology, 2009,47(1):93-130.
[13]	Farrell G, Philips C, Pease K . Like taking candy: Why does repeat victimization occur? [J]. British Journal of Criminology, 1995,35(3):384-399.
[14]	龙冬平, 柳林, 周素红 , 等. 地理学视角下犯罪者行为研究进展 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2017,36(7):886-902.
	[ Long Dongping, Liu Lin, Zhou Suhong , et al. Research progress of criminal behavior from the perspective of geography. Progress in Geography, 2017,36(7):886-902. ]
[15]	Johnson D . The space/time behaviour of dwelling burglars: Finding near repeat patterns in serial offender data [J]. Applied Geography, 2013,41(7):139-146.
[16]	Townsley M, Birks D, Ruiter S , et al. Target selection models with preference variation between offenders [J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2016,32(2):283-304.
[17]	Block R, Block C R . The Bronx and Chicago: Street robbery in the environs of rapid transit stations [M]. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications, 1999.
[18]	Kooi B R . Assessing the correlation between bus stop densities and residential crime typologies [J]. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 2013,15(2):81-105.
[19]	Groff E R, Ratcliffe J H, Haberman C P , et al. Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia policing tactics experiment [J]. Criminology, 2015,53(1):23-53.
[20]	Brantingham P L, Brantingham P J . Criminality of place: Crime generators and crime attractors [J]. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 1995,3(3):5-26.
[21]	Bernasco W, Block R . Robberies in Chicago: A block-level analysis of the influence of crime generators, crime attractors, and offender anchor points [J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2011,48(1):33-57.
[22]	Kurland J, Johnson S D, Tilley N . Offenses around stadiums: A natural experiment on crime attraction and generation [J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2014,51(1):5-28.
[23]	Jean P K B S. Pockets of crime: Broken windows, collective efficacy, and the criminal point of view [M]. Chicago, USA: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.
[24]	Gialopsos B M, Carter J W . Offender searches and crime events [J]. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2015,31(1):53-70.
[25]	Clarke R V, Cornish D B . Modeling offenders' decisions: A framework for research and policy [J]. Crime and Justice, 1985,6:147-185.
[26]	Clarke R V, Felson M . Routine activity and rational choice: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 5) [M]. New Brunswick, USA: Transaction Publisher, 1993.
[27]	Felson M, Clarke R V . Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention [J]. Police Research, 1998,1(1):1-36.
[28]	Morrison S, O'Donnell I. An analysis of the decision-making practices of armed robbers [M]. Monsey, USA: Criminal Justice Press, 1996.
[29]	Johnson S D, Bowers K J . The stability of space-time clusters of burglary [J]. British Journal of Criminology, 2004,44(1):55-65.
[30]	Jacobs B, Wright R . Stick-up, street culture, and offender motivation [J]. Criminology, 1999,37(1):149-174.
[31]	Bursik R J . Social disorganization and theories of crime delinquency: Problems and prospects [J]. Criminology, 1988,26(4):519-552.
[32]	Shaw C R, Mckay H D. Juvenile delinquency and urban areas [M]. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
[33]	Hirschfield A, Bowers K J . The effect of social cohesion on levels of recorded crime in disadvantaged areas [J]. Urban Studies, 1997,34(8):1275-1295.
[34]	Weisburd D, Groff E R, Yang S . Understanding and controlling hot spots of crime: The importance of formal and informal social controls [J]. Prevention Science, 2014,15(1):31-43.
[35]	Braga A A, Clarke R V . Explaining high-risk concentrations of crime in the city: Social disorganization, crime opportunities, and important next steps [J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2014,51(4):480-498.
[36]	Law J, Quick M, Chan P . Open area and road density as land use indicators of young offender residential locations at the small-area level: A case study in Ontario, Canada [J]. Urban Studies, 2016,53(8):1710-1726.
[37]	Ceccato V, Haining R . Assessing the geography of vandalism: Evidence from a Swedish city [J]. Urban Studies, 2005,42(9):1637-1656.
[38]	Galster G, Santiago A . Neighbourhood ethnic composition and outcomes for low-income Latino and African American children [J]. Urban Studies, 2017,54(2):482-500.
[39]	Johnson S D, Summers L . Testing ecological theories of offender spatial decision making using a discrete choice model [J]. Crime & Delinquency, 2015,61(3):454-480.
[40]	Hirschfield A, Birkin M, Brunsdon C , et al. How places influence crime: The impact of surrounding areas on neighbourhood burglary rates in a British city [J]. Urban Studies, 2014,51(5):1057-1072.
[41]	柳林, 张春霞, 冯嘉欣 , 等. ZG市诈骗犯罪的时空分布与影响因素 [J]. 地理学报, 2017,72(2):315-328.
	[ Liu Lin, Zhang Chunxia, Feng Jiaxin , et al. The spatial-temporal distribution and influencing factors of fraud crime in ZG City, China. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017,72(2):315-328. ]
[42]	Bernasco W, Nieuwbeerta P . How do residential burglars select target areas? A new approach to the analysis of criminal location choice [J]. British Journal of Criminology, 2005,45(3):296-315.
[43]	Johnson S D, Bernasco W, Bowers K J , et al. Space-time patterns of risk: A cross national assessment of residential burglary victimization [J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2007,23(3):201-219.
[44]	Johnson S D . Repeat burglary victimisation: A tale of two theories [J]. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2008,4(3):215-240.
[45]	Byeon J, Kim I, Lee D . Protest and property crime: Political use of police resources and the deterrence of crime [J]. Public Choice, 2018,175(1-2):181-196.
[46]	Benson B L . The allocation of police [M]// Benson B L, Zimmerman P R. Handbook on the economics of crime. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010: 184-217.
[47]	Bernasco W . Them again? Same-offender involvement in repeat and near repeat burglaries [J]. European Journal of Criminology, 2008,5(4):411-431.
[48]	Townsley M, Homel R, Chaseling J . Infectious burglaries: A test of the near repeat hypojournal [J]. British Journal of Criminology, 2003,43(3):615-633.
[49]	Smith W, Bond J W, Townsley M . Determining how journeys-to-crime vary: Measuring inter-and intra-offender crime trip distributions [M]. New York, USA: Springer, 2009: 217-236.
[50]	Ackerman J M, Rossmo D K . How far to travel? A multilevel analysis of the residence-to-crime distance [J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2015,31(2):237-262.
[51]	Snook B, Wright M, House J C , et al. Searching for a needle in a needle stack: Combining criminal careers and journey to crime research for criminal suspect prioritization [J]. Police Practice and Research, 2006,7(3):217-230. doi: 10.1080/15614260500432972
[52]	Vandeviver C, Van Daele S, Vander Beken T . What makes long crime trips worth undertaking? Balancing costs and Benefits in burglars' journey to crime [J]. British Journal of Criminology, 2015,55(2):399-420.
[53]	Wiles P, Costello A . The "road to nowhere": The evidence for travelling [M]. London, UK: Home Office, 2000.
[54]	Van Koppen P J, Jansen R W J . The road to robbery: Travel patterns in commercial robberies [J]. British Journal of Criminology, 1998,38(2):230-246.
[55]	Cornish D B, Clarke R V . The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending [M]. New York, USA: Springer, 1986.
[56]	Liu L, Jiang C, Zhou S , et al. Impact of public bus system on spatial burglary patterns in a Chinese urban context [J]. Applied Geography, 2017,89:142-149.
[57]	龙冬平, 柳林, 冯嘉欣 , 等. 社区环境对入室盗窃和室外盗窃影响的对比分析: 以ZG市ZH半岛为例 [J]. 地理学报, 2017,72(2):341-355.
	[ Long Dongping, Liu Lin, Feng Jiaxin , et al. Comparisons of the community environment effects on burglary and outdoor-theft: A case study of ZH peninsula in ZG City. Acta Geographica Sinica, 2017,72(2):341-355. ]
[58]	Baudains P, Braithwaite A, Johnson S D . Target choice during extreme events: A discrete spatial choice model of the 2011 London riots [J]. Criminology, 2013,51(2):251-285.
[59]	Groff E R, Lockwood B . Criminogenic facilities and crime across street segments in Philadelphia: Uncovering evidence about the spatial extent of facility influence [J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2014,51(3):277-314.
[60]	Andresen M A, Malleson N . Police foot patrol and crime displacement [J]. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2014,30(2):186-199. doi: 10.1177/1043986214525076
[61]	Braga A A . The continued importance of measuring potentially harmful impacts of crime prevention programs: the academy of experimental criminology 2014 Joan McCord lecture [J]. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2016,12(1):1-20. doi: 10.1007/s11292-016-9252-4
[62]	Haberman C P, Groff E R, Ratcliffe J H , et al. Satisfaction with police in violent crime hot spots: Using community surveys as a guide for selecting hot spots policing tactics [J]. Crime & Delinquency, 2016,62(4):525-557.
[63]	Jacobs B A, Addington L A . Gating and residential robbery [J]. Crime Prevention & Community, 2016,18(1):19-37.
[64]	聂冲, 贾生华 . 离散选择模型的基本原理及其发展演进评介 [J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, 2005(11):151-159.
	[ Nie Chong, Jia Shenghua . Research on the theoretical basis and evolution of discrete choice models. The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, 2005(11):151-159. ]
[65]	Mcfadden D, Train K . Mixed M N L models for discrete response [J]. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2000,15(5):447-470. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1255
[66]	王灿, 王德, 朱玮 , 等. 离散选择模型研究进展 [J]. 地理科学进展, 2015,34(10):1275-1287. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.10.008
	[ Wang Can, Wang De, Zhu Wei , et al. Research progress of discrete choice models. Progress in Geography, 2015,34(10):1275-1287. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2015.10.008
[67]	Frith M J, Johnson S D, Fry H M . Role of the street network in Burglars' spatial decision-making [J]. Criminology, 2017,55(2):344-376.
[68]	McFadden D . Quantitative methods for analysing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments [M]// Henser D A, Stopher P R B. Vioural travel modelling. London, UK: Croom Helm, 1978: 279-318.
[69]	Hamilton L C . Statistics with STATA: Version 12 [M]. California, USA: Cengage Learning, 2012.
[70]	Van Daele S, Beken T V . Outbound offending: The journey to crime and crime sprees [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2011,31(1):70-78.
[71]	Liu L, Li J C M. Progress and future directions of crime research in China with selected case studies [J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2017,54(4):447-453.
[72]	Johnson S D, Summers L, Pease K . Offender as forager? A direct test of the boost account of victimization [J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2009,25(2):181-200.

涉案人数/人	被捕记录/次	案件数/起	案件比例/%
1	2646	2646	60.72
2	1758	879	20.17
3	1209	403	9.25
4	812	203	4.66
5	565	113	2.59
≥6	870	114	2.62
合计	7860	4358	100

个体属性	数量/人	百分比/%
性别
男性	520	98.67
女性	7	1.33
年龄(截至2016年12月)
12~18岁	58	11.01
19~23岁	152	28.84
24~30岁	137	26.00
31~40岁	109	20.68
41~50岁	54	10.25
51岁及以上	17	3.23

重复抢劫次数	街头抢劫者		街头抢劫案件		匹配案件
重复抢劫次数	数量/人	百分比/%	数量/起	百分比/%	数量/起	百分比/%
2	412	78.18	824	65.29	412	36.85
3	69	13.09	207	16.40	207	18.52
4	21	3.98	84	6.66	126	11.27
5	13	2.47	65	5.15	130	11.63
6	4	0.76	24	1.90	60	5.37
7	7	1.33	49	3.88	147	13.15
9	1	0.19	9	0.71	36	3.22
合计	527	100	1262	100	1118	100

犯罪间隔	案件数/起	百分比/%
0~2 d	210	18.78
3~7 d	123	11.00
8~30 d	234	20.93
1~6个月	205	18.34
7~24个月	241	21.56
大于24个月	105	9.39

变量	OR	SE	Z	95%的置信区间
“前后案件”的犯罪间隔
0~2 d	24.453^***	16.442	4.75	[6.546, 91.345]
3~7 d	17.928^***	12.541	4.13	[4.551, 70.623]
8~30 d	9.007^**	5.885	3.36	[2.503, 32.412]
1~6个月	7.870^**	5.292	3.07	[2.107, 29.399]
7~24个月	1.943	1.284	1.01	[0.532, 7.093]
大于24个月	1.000	1.000	1.000	[1.000, 1.000]
公交站	1.071^**	0.026	2.84	[1.021, 1.122]
客运站	1.621^**	0.260	3.01	[1.184, 2.219]
地铁站	0.855^*	0.060	-2.21	[0.745, 0.982]
道路网络密度	0.932^*	0.035	-2.09	[0.866, 0.997]
商场与超市	0.994	0.016	-0.38	[0.964, 1.025]
杂货店	0.975	0.038	-0.64	[0.903, 1.053]
批发市场	0.959	0.043	-0.93	[0.879, 1.047]
酒吧与会所	1.091^*	0.050	3.12	[1.037, 1.192]
中学	1.240^*	0.133	2.00	[1.004, 1.530]
外来人口比重	1.143	0.377	0.40	[0.598, 2.183]
青少年人口比重	0.688	0.408	-0.63	[0.216, 2.196]
破案率	1.693	1.712	0.52	[0.233, 12.284]
“后案件”犯罪出行距离	0.163^***	0.042	-7.00	[0.098, 0.271]
年龄	1.028	0.019	1.54	[0.992, 1.065]
户籍	2.184^*	1.055	2.04	[1.048, 5.628]
常数项	0.005^***	0.005	-5.13	[0.001, 0.036]
随机效应参数	估计值	标准误差		95%的置信区间
标准差(常数项)	1.647	0.304		[1.147, 2.365]

街头抢劫者前犯罪经历对其后作案地选择的影响

Impact of prior crime experiences of street robbers on subsequent crime location choices

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 72

相关文章 3

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

变量	OR	SE	Z	95%的置信区间
“前案件”犯罪出行距离	0.599^*	0.151	-2.04	[0.366, 0.981]
公交站	1.078^**	0.029	2.78	[1.022, 1.136]
客运站	1.565^**	0.268	2.62	[1.119, 2.190]
地铁站	0.864^*	0.065	-2.11	[0.745, 0.986]
道路网络密度	0.902^*	0.037	-2.49	[0.832, 0.978]
商场与超市	0.981	0.017	-1.10	[0.949, 1.015]
杂货店	0.978	0.041	-0.54	[0.901, 1.061]
批发市场	0.934	0.046	-1.39	[0.849, 1.028]
酒吧与会所	1.088^*	0.054	2.98	[1.027, 1.200]
中学	1.205	0.138	1.63	[0.964, 1.507]
外来人口比重	1.257	0.449	0.64	[0.624, 2.533]
青少年人口比重	0.543	0.343	-0.97	[0.158, 1.871]
破案率	4.884	5.160	1.50	[0.616, 38.739]
“后案件”犯罪出行距离	0.158^***	0.048	-6.11	[0.087, 0.286]
年龄	1.010	0.020	0.51	[0.972, 1.050]
户籍	2.318^*	1.220	2.16	[1.086, 6.504]
常数项	0.049^***	0.043	-4.04	[0.002, 0.079]
随机效应参数	估计值	标准误差		95%的置信区间
标准差(常数项)	2.055	0.383		[1.426, 2.962]

变量	OR	SE	Z	95%的置信区间
“前案件”未当场被捕	10.029^***	4.783	4.83	[3.938, 25.538]
公交站	1.074^**	0.029	2.66	[1.019, 1.132]
客运站	1.860^**	0.345	3.35	[1.293, 2.676]
地铁站	0.867^*	0.069	-2.06	[0.742, 0.990]
道路网络密度	0.914^*	0.037	-2.19	[0.844, 0.990]
商场与超市	0.998	0.017	-0.14	[0.964, 1.032]
杂货店	0.979	0.042	-0.50	[0.901, 1.064]
批发市场	0.930	0.045	-1.49	[0.845, 1.023]
酒吧与会所	1.078^*	0.054	2.13	[1.017, 1.190]
中学	1.234	0.142	1.83	[0.985, 1.545]
外来人口比重	1.237	0.448	0.59	[0.608, 2.517]
青少年人口比重	0.608	0.391	-0.77	[0.172, 2.143]
破案率	1.838	1.965	0.57	[0.226, 14.942]
“后案件”犯罪出行距离	0.119^***	0.036	-6.97	[0.065, 0.216]
年龄	1.005	0.020	0.26	[0.967, 1.045]
户籍	3.239^*	1.739	2.19	[1.131, 9.276]
常数项	0.007^***	0.007	-4.86	[0.001, 0.051]
随机效应参数	估计值	标准误差		95%的置信区间
标准差(常数项)	2.006	0.384		[1.378, 2.921]

[1]	刘熠孟, 李卫红, 王昕. 微观尺度下毒品犯罪时空分布及成因分析——以SZ市NH、DM街道为例[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(5): 841-852.
[2]	刘玲, 李钢, 薛淑艳, 马雪瑶, 周俊俊, 徐婷婷, 王皎贝. 四川省拐卖儿童犯罪的时空演变过程及影响因素分析[J]. 地理科学进展, 2020, 39(5): 853-865.
[3]	龙冬平, 柳林, 周素红, 杜方叶, 宋广文, 肖露子. 地理学视角下犯罪者行为研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 2017, 36(7): 886-902.