犯罪数量与危害的空间分布及建成环境影响——基于北京市刑事案件的纵向研究

doi:10.18306/dlkxjz.2019.12.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Existing criminal geography research has always focused on the number of cases, but neglected their severity. Limited by the availability of data, cross-sectional analysis was more universal than longitudinal, which would cause endogeneity problems. Furthermore, spatial dependence of different independent variables has not been systematically examined. In order to fill these gaps, this study utilized criminal case records, points of interest, and road network data from 2012 to 2017 in Beijing to explore spatial pattern of crime number and its harm, and clarify the role of urban built environment in their forming process. In order to measure the extent of crime harm, criminal penalty by judicial authorities was used as the indicator. First, this research demonstrated that both crime number and crime harm showed geographical concentration and agglomeration. However, concentration extent of crime harm was higher than crime number, but agglomeration extent of crime harm was lower than crime number. The degree of harmspot's stability was weaker than crimespot, therefore geographical analysis of crime number cannot fully reveal the spatial pattern of social harms caused by criminal cases. Second, permeable space postulated by street eyes theory was unable to inhibit criminal activities, while high density land use, diversified urban functions, convenient transport branch networks, and close spatial proximity to crime-prone areas could lead to the increase of crime number and crime harm, which is consistent with the prediction of defensible space theory. Additionally, crime harm was more susceptible to conducive built environment factors. Third, most influences caused by various characteristics of the built environment showed spatial dependence. Specifically, density, diversity, design of road network, as well as commercial place had agglomeration spillover effect, which meant that both local and neighboring environmental elements had positive relationship with native criminal activities. In contrast, local educational institutions, parks, squares, hotels, bus stops, parking lots, and residential areas that were strictly supervised had no effect or negative effect on native criminal activities, but neighboring attractors had significant positive impact on native criminal patterns. Because of this spatial competition effect, security measures should not confine to local areas and attractors.

Key words: criminal geography, crime harm, built environment, longitudinal research, Beijing

ZHANG Yanji, ZHU Chunwu, QIN Bo. Spatial distribution of crime number and harm and the influence of the built environment: A longitudinal research on criminal cases in Beijing[J].PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(12): 1876-1889.

Figures/Tables 13

Fig.1

Tab.1

Descriptive statistics of variables"

变量	释义	均值			标准差
变量	释义	2013年	2015年	2017年	2013年	2015年	2017年
被解释变量
所有犯罪的发生数量	单位：起	0.75	0.96	0.72	2.23	2.93	2.27
所有犯罪的危害程度	单位：月	12.06	12.61	8.43	48.56	54.66	40.13
盗窃犯罪的发生数量	单位：起	0.30	0.44	0.37	1.04	1.54	1.30
盗窃犯罪的危害程度	单位：月	3.59	3.87	3.07	15.77	14.86	12.10
暴力犯罪的发生数量	单位：起	0.45	0.52	0.36	1.48	1.70	1.24
暴力犯罪的危害程度	单位：月	8.47	8.75	5.37	41.53	47.44	35.25
解释变量
POI密度	单位：个/km²	108.18	165.08	227.44	272.75	434.77	521.42
POI熵指数	$EI = ∑ S i × ln (1 / S i)$ ,S_i为方格网内i类POI占总POI之比	1.51	1.51	1.72	0.74	0.76	0.68
主干道密度	单位：km/km²	0.65	0.67	0.70	0.95	0.96	0.98
次干道支路密度	单位：km/km²	1.88	2.04	2.19	2.04	2.12	2.20
到地铁站的最短距离	单位：km	10.35	9.58	8.73	8.36	8.25	8.18
公交站POI比重	S41类POI占总POI之比	0.06	0.06	0.05	0.12	0.11	0.08
居住类POI比重	R21、R21、R31类POI占总POI之比	0.08	0.08	0.07	0.16	0.12	0.11
零售批发类POI比重	B11、B12类POI占总POI之比	0.12	0.14	0.17	0.14	0.15	0.15
餐饮类POI比重	B13类POI占总POI之比	0.07	0.08	0.06	0.10	0.10	0.07
旅馆类POI比重	B14类POI占总POI之比	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.04	0.03
商务办公类POI比重	B21、B22、B29类POI占总POI之比	0.14	0.18	0.21	0.20	0.16	0.18
停车场POI比重	S42类POI占总POI之比	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.05	0.05	0.06
教育科研类POI比重	A3类POI占总POI之比	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.07	0.05	0.05
医疗卫生类POI比重	A5类POI占总POI之比	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.03	0.02
工业类POI比重	M类POI占总POI之比	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.06	0.06	0.05
公园广场类POI比重	G类POI占总POI之比	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.03	0.03	0.03
混淆变量
房屋平均单价	单位：万元	1.64	1.97	3.73	1.19	1.17	1.99
到派出所的最短距离	单位：km	3.11	2.99	2.88	1.95	1.94	2.01

Tab.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.2

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Tab.3

Tab.4

Regression results of built environment to criminal activities considered spatially lagged variables"

变量	模型7：	模型8：	模型9：	模型10：	模型11：	模型12：
变量	所有犯罪的发生数量	所有犯罪的危害程度	盗窃犯罪的发生数量	盗窃犯罪的危害程度	暴力犯罪的发生数量	暴力犯罪的危害程度
POI密度	0.089^**	0.263^***	0.038	0.224^***	0.149^***	0.210^***
POI密度的空间滞后项	0.012	0.192^***	-0.043	0.203^***	-0.010	0.086^*
POI熵指数	0.136^**	0.179^***	0.043	0.136^*	0.362^**	0.457^***
POI熵指数的空间滞后项	0.109	0.151	0.035	0.007	0.223^***	0.192^***
主干道密度	-0.037	0.003	-0.021	-0.010	-0.078	-0.021
主干道密度的空间滞后项	-0.161	-0.002	-0.383^**	-0.120^**	-0.098	0.094
次干道支路密度	-0.024	0.080^**	0.021	0.009	-0.023	0.124^*
次干道支路密度的空间滞后项	0.161	-0.064	0.314	-0.088	0.047	0.085^*
到地铁站的最短距离	-0.093	-0.072	-0.061	-0.156	-0.081	0.006
公交站点POI比重	0.023	-0.034	-0.004	-0.039	0.013	-0.009
公交站点POI比重的空间滞后项	0.321^***	-0.047	0.417^**	0.229	0.233^**	0.049
居住类POI比重	0.036	0.046	0.048	0.029	0.012	0.005
居住类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.173^***	0.119^**	0.182^**	0.184^**	0.148^**	0.111^*
零售批发类POI比重	0.242^**	0.122^***	0.447^***	0.269^***	0.021	0.031
零售批发类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.085^***	0.075	0.179^***	0.111^*	0.079	0.107
餐饮类POI比重	0.110^**	0.150^***	0.138^*	0.079^*	0.154^**	0.122^**
餐饮类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.076^**	0.097^**	0.067	0.095	0.083^**	0.093^**
旅馆类POI比重	0.048	0.041	0.067	0.047	0.041	0.030
旅馆类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.096	0.116^*	0.125	0.312^***	0.089	0.167^**
商务办公类POI比重	0.137^**	0.021	0.143^*	0.067	0.147^**	0.006
商务办公类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.096	-0.049	0.178	0.199	0.052	-0.091
停车场POI比重	-0.030	-0.082^*	0.066	0.047	-0.095	-0.076
停车场POI比重的空间滞后项	0.061	0.164^**	0.034	0.055	-0.023	-0.025
教育科研类POI比重	0.056	0.034	0.034	-0.022	0.083	-0.012
教育科研类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.046	0.170^**	-0.127	0.070	0.147	0.187^**
医疗卫生类POI比重	0.087^**	0.065^**	0.160^***	0.118^**	0.054	0.031
医疗卫生类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.161^***	0.063	0.075	0.069	0.204^***	0.172^**
工业类POI比重	0.098^**	0.065	0.105	-0.006	0.226^**	0.081
工业类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.069	0.113	0.051	0.110	0.040	0.080
公园广场类POI比重	-0.083	-0.126^*	-0.105	-0.164	-0.084	-0.028
公园广场类POI比重的空间滞后项	0.135^*	0.145^*	0.220^*	0.293^**	0.089	0.052
房屋单价均值	-0.071	0.122^*	-0.087	0.218^**	0.004	0.130^**
到派出所的最短距离	0.046	0.192^***	0.078	0.120	0.205^**	0.146^***
常数	1.694^***	-2.220^***	1.257^***	-2.562^***	1.726^***	-2.412^***
Wald chi2(18)	172.14	1341.31	109.19	640.47	165.95	716.92
Prob>chi2	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Tab.4

References 47

[1]	龙冬平, 柳林, 周素红 , 等. 2017. 地理学视角下犯罪者行为研究进展[J]. 地理科学进展, 36(7):886-902. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.07.010
	[ Long D P, Liu L, Zhou S H , et al. 2017. Research progress of criminal behavior from the perspective of geography. Progress in Geography, 36(7):886-902. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2017.07.010
[2]	宋伟轩, 毛宁, 陈培阳 , 等. 2017. 基于住宅价格视角的居住分异耦合机制与时空特征: 以南京为例[J]. 地理学报, 72(4):589-602. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201704003
	[ Song W X, Mao N, Chen P Y , et al. 2017. Coupling mechanism and spatial-temporal pattern of residential differentiation from the perspective of housing prices: A case study of Nanjing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 72(4):589-602. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201704003
[3]	徐冰, 贺耀萱 . 2014. 英国居住空间形态与犯罪的关系研究综述: 基于空间句法量化分析方法的典型建构[J]. 城市规划, 38(10):91-94.
	[ Xu B, He Y X . 2014. An overview of studies on the relationship between residential spatial form and crime in the United Kingdom: The quantitative analysis method based on space syntax. City Planning Review, 38(10):91-94. ]
[4]	徐冲, 柳林, 周素红 . 2015. DP半岛街头抢劫案件的临近重复发生模式[J]. 地理研究, 34(2):384-394. doi: 10.11821/dlyj201502017
	[ Xu C, Liu L, Zhou S H . 2015. Patterns of near-repeat street robbery in DP Peninsula. Geographical Research, 34(2):384-394. ] doi: 10.11821/dlyj201502017
[5]	张宁, 王大为 . 2018. 基于风险地形建模的毒品犯罪风险评估和警务预测[J]. 地理科学进展, 37(8):1131-1139. doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2018.08.012
	[ Zhang N, Wang D W . 2018. Drug-related crime risk assessment and predictive policing based on risk terrain modeling. Progress in Geography, 37(8):1131-1139. ] doi: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2018.08.012
[6]	张延吉, 秦波, 朱春武 . 2019. 北京城市建成环境对犯罪行为和居住安全感的影响[J]. 地理学报, 74(2):238-252. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201902003
	[ Zhang Y J, Qin B, Zhu C W . 2019. The impact of urban built environment on criminal behavior and residential security in Beijing. Acta Geographica Sinica, 74(2):238-252. ] doi: 10.11821/dlxb201902003
[7]	Bernasco W, Block R . 2011. 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, 48(1):33-57. doi: 10.1177/0022427810384135
[8]	Braga A A, Hureau D M, Papachristos A V . 2011. The relevance of micro places to citywide robbery trends: A longitudinal analysis of robbery incidents at street corners and block faces in Boston[J]. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(1):7-32. doi: 10.1177/0022427810384137
[9]	Brantingham P, Brantingham P . 1995. Criminality of place: crime generators and crime attractors[J]. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 13(3):5-26.
[10]	Cervero R, Kockelman K . 1997. Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity and design[J]. Transportation Research D, 2(3):199-219. doi: 10.1016/S1361-9209(97)00009-6
[11]	Cohen L E, Felson M . 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach[J]. American Sociological Review, 44(4):588-608. doi: 10.2307/2094589
[12]	Cornish D B, Clarke R V . 1986. Reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending[M]. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag.
[13]	Curtis-Ham S, Walton D . 2017. Mapping crime harm and priority locations in New Zealand: A comparison of spatial analysis methods[J]. Applied Geography, 86:245-254. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.008
[14]	Deane G, Messner S F, Stucky T D , et al. 2008. Not 'islands, entire of themselves': Exploring the spatial context of city-level robbery rates[J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(4):363-380. doi: 10.1007/s10940-008-9049-3
[15]	Ewing R, Cervero R . 2010. Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis[J]. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3):265-294. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0471-5 pmid: 28166790
[16]	Foster S, Hooper P, Knuiman M , et al. 2016. Are liveable neighbourhoods safer neighbourhoods? Testing the rhetoric on new urbanism and safety from crime in Perth, Western Australia[J]. Social Science & Medicine, 164:150-157. doi: 10.1111/medu.14027 pmid: 31875656
[17]	Fotheringham A S . 1985. Spatial competition and agglomeration in urban modelling[J]. Environment and Planning A, 17(2):213-230 doi: 10.1068/a170213
[18]	Gilderbloom J I, Riggs W W, Meares W L . 2015. Does walkability matter? An examination of walkability's impact on housing values, foreclosures and crime[J]. Cities, 42:13-24. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.08.001
[19]	Gruenewald P J, Remer L . 2006. Changes in outlet densities affect violence rates[J]. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30(7):1184-1193. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00141.x pmid: 16792566
[20]	Heaton P . 2010 Hidden in plain sight: What cost-of-crime research can tell us about investing in police [R]. Washington DC, USA: RAND Corporation Center on Quality Policing.
[21]	Hipp J R . 2010. A dynamic view of neighborhoods: The reciprocal relationship between crime and neighborhood structural characteristics[J]. Social Problems, 57(2):205-230. doi: 10.1525/sp.2010.57.2.205
[22]	Jacobs J . 1961. The death and life of great American cities[M]. New York, USA: Vintage.
[23]	Langton S H, Steenbeek W . 2017. Residential burglary target selection: An analysis at the property-level using google street view[J]. Applied Geography, 86:292-299. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.014
[24]	Linden L, Rockoff J E . 2008. Estimates of the impact of crime risk on property values from Megan's Laws[J]. American Economic Review, 98(3):1103-1127. doi: 10.1257/aer.98.3.1103
[25]	Liu D, Song W, Xiu C . 2016. Spatial patterns of violent crimes and neighborhood characteristics in Changchun, China[J]. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(1):53-72. doi: 10.1111/jep.13340 pmid: 31875655
[26]	Los G, Ignatans D, Pease K . 2017. First-generation immigrant judgements of offence seriousness: Evidence from the crime survey for England and Wales[J]. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 19(2):151-161. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104328 pmid: 31869698
[27]	Macbeth E, Ariel B . 2019. Place-based statistical versus clinical predictions of crime hot spots and harm locations in Northern Ireland[J]. Justice Quarterly, 36(1):93-126. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2017.1360379
[28]	Melo S N D, Matias L F, Andresen M A . 2015. Crime concentrations and similarities in spatial crime patterns in a Brazilian context[J]. Applied Geography, 62:314-324. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.05.012
[29]	Newman O . 1972. Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design[M]. New York, USA: Macmillan.
[30]	Norton S, Ariel B, Weinborn C , et al. 2018. Spatiotemporal patterns and distributions of harm within street segments: The story of the "harmspot"[J]. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 41(3):352-371. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12404 pmid: 31190378
[31]	Papachristos A V, Smith C M, Scherer M L , et al. 2011. More coffee, less crime? The relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005[J]. City & Community, 10(3):215-240. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.3770-19 pmid: 31875636
[32]	Ratcliffe J H . 2015. Towards an index for harm-focused policing[J]. Policing, 9(2):164-181. doi: 10.1093/police/pau032
[33]	Sellin T, Wolfgang M E . 1964. The measurement of delinquency[M]. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
[34]	Sherman L, Neyroud P W, Neyroud E . 2016. The Cambridge crime harm index: Measuring total harm from crime based on sentencing guidelines[J]. Policing, 10(3):171-183. doi: 10.1093/police/paw003
[35]	Snook B, Wright M, House J C , et al. 2006. 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, 7(3):217-230. doi: 10.1080/15614260500432972
[36]	Sohn D . 2016. Residential crimes and neighbourhood built environment: Assessing the effectiveness of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)[J]. Cities, 52:86-93. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.023
[37]	SooHyun O, Lee Y J . 2016. Crime and land use in Pittsburgh: A micro-size grid-cell analysis of the influence of land-uses on area crime[J]. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 18(3):204-227. doi: 10.1057/cpcs.2016.9
[38]	Stacy C P, Ho H, Pendall R . 2017. Neighborhood-level economic activity and crime[J]. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(2):225-240. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0890-6 pmid: 31796075
[39]	Stucky T D, Ottensmann J R . 2009. Land use and violent crime[J]. Criminology, 47(4):1223-1264. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22243 pmid: 31508829
[40]	Tobler W R . 1970. A Computer Movie Simulating urban growth in the Detroit region[J]. Economic Geography, 46:234-240. doi: 10.2307/143141
[41]	Twinam T . 2017. Danger zone: Land use and the geography of neighborhood crime[J]. Journal of Urban Economics, 100:104-119. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2017.05.006
[42]	Weinborn C, Ariel B, Sherman L W , et al. 2017. Hotspots vs. harmspots: Shifting the focus from counts to harm in the criminology of place[J]. Applied Geography, 86:226-244. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.06.009
[43]	Weisburd D . 2015. The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place[J]. Criminology, 53(2):133-157. doi: 10.1007/s00115-018-0650-x pmid: 30560385
[44]	Weisburd D, Bushway S, Lum C , et al. 2004. Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle[J]. Criminology, 42(2):283-321. doi: 10.1111/crim.2004.42.issue-2
[45]	Weisburd D, Morris N A, Groff E R . 2009. Hot spots of juvenile crime: A longitudinal study of arrest incidents at street segments in Seattle, Washington[J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(4):443-467. doi: 10.1007/s10940-009-9075-9
[46]	Wo J C . 2016. Community context of crime: A longitudinal examination of the effects of local institutions on neighborhood crime[J]. Crime & Delinquency, 62(10):1286-1312. doi: 10.1007/s10964-019-01178-w pmid: 31875273
[47]	Zhang W . 2016. Does compact land use trigger a rise in crime and a fall in ridership? A role for crime in the land use-travel connection[J]. Urban Studies, 53(14):3007-3026. doi: 10.1177/0042098015605222

类型	年份	犯罪发生数量				犯罪危害程度
类型	年份	累积25%犯罪数量的方格网比重/%	累积50%犯罪数量的方格网比重/%	Moran's I		累积25%犯罪危害程度得分的方格网比重/%	累积50%犯罪危害程度得分的方格网比重/%	Moran's I
所有犯罪	2013	1.31	3.92	0.368^***		0.78	2.64	0.204^***
	2015	1.22	3.82	0.332^***		0.65	2.49	0.136^***
	2017	1.14	3.79	0.296^***		0.48	2.36	0.123^***
盗窃犯罪	2013	1.03	2.97	0.416^***		0.61	1.88	0.295^***
	2015	0.94	3.01	0.348^***		0.78		2.38	0.307^***
	2017	0.90	2.83	0.334^***	0.74		2.31	0.272^***
暴力犯罪	2013	1.13	3.66	0.224^***	0.52	2.01	0.111^***
	2015	1.11	3.71	0.228^***	0.39		1.70	0.065^***
	2017	1.03	3.55	0.176^***	0.22		1.35	0.055^***

变量	模型1：	模型2：	模型3：	模型4：	模型5：	模型6：
变量	所有犯罪的发生数量	所有犯罪的危害程度	盗窃犯罪的发生数量	盗窃犯罪的危害程度	暴力犯罪的发生数量	暴力犯罪的危害程度
POI密度	0.092^***	0.286^***	0.027	0.268^***	0.135^***	0.255^***
POI熵指数	0.204^***	0.276^***	0.049	0.118^**	0.295^***	0.266^***
主干道密度	-0.022	0.037^*	-0.017	0.011	-0.073	0.021
次干道支路密度	0.006	0.094^***	0.062	0.015	-0.011	0.109^***
到地铁站的最短距离	-0.121	-0.207^***	-0.082	-0.343^***	-0.123	-0.098
公交站POI比重	0.075	-0.074	0.004	-0.070	0.076	0.013
居住类POI比重	0.095^***	0.093^***	0.091^**	0.086^**	0.085^***	0.076^**
零售批发类POI比重	0.155^***	0.120^***	0.299^***	0.178^***	0.053	0.038
餐饮类POI比重	0.143^***	0.131^***	0.148^***	0.125^***	0.161^***	0.151^***
旅馆类POI比重	0.077^**	0.070^*	0.110^**	0.111^**	0.060	0.058
商务办公类POI比重	0.152^***	0.026	0.176^**	0.118	0.134^**	0.010
停车场POI比重	-0.063	-0.065^*	0.049	0.063	-0.184^***	-0.128^***
教育科研类POI比重	0.076	0.063	0.004	0.007	0.126^**	0.022
医疗卫生类POI比重	0.114^***	0.078^***	0.187^***	0.136^**	0.075^*	0.043
工业类POI比重	0.105^**	0.051	0.117^*	-0.027	0.089^*	0.088
公园广场类POI比重	-0.073	-0.093	-0.056	-0.109	-0.080	-0.019
房屋单价均值	-0.053	0.092^***	-0.081	0.088^**	0.007	0.053
到派出所的最短距离	0.017	0.260^***	0.094	0.213^***	0.161^*	0.199^***
常数	1.724^***	-2.270^***	1.415^***	-2.585^***	1.563^***	-2.468^***
Wald chi2(18)	124.43	1325.63	66.42	623.70	134.28	683.60
Prob>chi2	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01	<0.01

Spatial distribution of crime number and harm and the influence of the built environment: A longitudinal research on criminal cases in Beijing

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Like

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 13

References 47

Related Articles 15

Metrics

Comments

Recommended 0

[1]	LIU Ye, XIAO Tong, LIU Yuqi, QIU Yingzhi, LIU Yi, LI Zhigang. Impacts of urban built environments on residents’ subjective well-being: An analysis based on 15-minute walking distance [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(8): 1270-1282.
[2]	ZHU Guanyu, CHEN Peng. Spatial evolution and influencing factors of criminals’ cross-area co-offending network: An example of fraud in Beijing [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(5): 792-803.
[3]	GUO Yaqi, CHEN Peng. Formation and feature analyses of crime hotspots using near repeat principle: A case study of robbery in Beijing [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(5): 804-814.
[4]	ZHANG Chunxia, ZHOU Suhong, LIU Lin, XIAO Luzi. Relationship between the built environment and theft cases in star hotels in ZG central city [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(5): 829-840.
[5]	ZHANG Feng, CHEN Yanguang, LIU Peng. Spatiotemporal relationships between urban system and water system in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(3): 377-388.
[6]	LU Minghua, ZHOU Yueyan, LIU Hanchu, XU Xin. Spatiotemporal dynamics and influencing factors of direct investment in Hebei Province by Beijing’s enterprises [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(3): 389-401.
[7]	LUO Kui, LI Guangdong, LAO Xin. Spatial reconstruction and optimization of industrial development in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(2): 179-194.
[8]	ZHANG Jingfei, ZHANG Lijun, QIN Yaochen, WANG Xia, SUN Yingying, RONG Peijun. Influencing factors of low-carbon behaviors of residents in Zhengzhou City from the perspective of cognition-behavior gaps [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(2): 265-275.
[9]	LI Xiaoli, SONG Weixuan, WU Wei, MA Yuzhu. Beijing urban spatial cognition based on follow-up investigations:Take graduate students in the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences as an example [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(2): 276-285.
[10]	LIU Xiaoxiao, WU Kang. Change of industrial investment networks in the central core area of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region under the background of non-capital function dispersal [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(12): 1972-1984.
[11]	FU Hui, LIU Yanjun, SUN Hongri, ZHOU Guolei. Spatiotemporal characteristics and dynamic mechanism of cultivated land use transition in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(12): 1985-1998.
[12]	WANG Bei, WANG Liang, LIU Yanhua, YANG Bo, HUANG Xiaochun, YANG Ming. Characteristics of jobs-housing spatial distribution in Beijing based on mobile phone signaling data [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(12): 2028-2042.
[13]	NIU Qiang, SHEN Yingjie, ZHOU Yi, HUANG Jingnan, WANG Pan. Effect and lag period of urban agglomeration construction land growth on economic growth based on lagged variable model:A case study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 39(10): 1656-1666.
[14]	Chunjiang LI, Jing MA, Yanwei CHAI, Mei-Po KWAN. Influence of neighborhood environment and noise pollution on residents’ mental health in Beijing [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(7): 1103-1110.
[15]	Xiaoxue SHI, Daoyi GONG, Yihong HU. Regional strong winter wind events over Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei and the associated atmospheric circulation changes during 1979-2017 [J]. PROGRESS IN GEOGRAPHY, 2019, 38(7): 1069-1079.