This article, titled “Where the Action Is at Places: Examining Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Juvenile Crime and Places Using Trajectory Analysis and GIS”, focuses on the theory that “crime places” (i.e. places where crime occur) are more helpful in crime prevention than focusing on individual people who have committed crimes. Written in 2009 by Groff et al, this work draws from the theories of environmental criminology and routine activity theory, which emphasize the role of places in impeding or inspiring criminal activity. This analysis aims to answer the question of whether micro areas (such a blocks) vary in their criminal activity, or whether these aggregations occur on more of a macro geographic level (neighborhoods, Census Tracts, etc.). Through a dataset created by Weisburg et al of juvenile crime in Seattle, WA over a 14 year period, trajectory analysis, and spatial autocorrelation, Groff et al found that there were both positive and negative relationships between the different blocks.

Overall, I found this analysis to be quite interesting. The article was quite long, over 20 pages, so I do believe that they could have shortened it, or added interesting facts about the Seattle area as opposed to GIS issues that were not necessary. I wish the maps were in color as well, but I know that choice was likely up to the journal. I would score this analysis an 8.5 out of 10.

In 1998, there was a relatively large (7245 ha) parcel of undeveloped and unconserved land that rested on the border between New York and New Jersey. This parcel, known as Sterling Forest, was located in an area that had significant potential for development, but was also a piece of large unfragmented land, making it an optimal place to try and preserve. The result was a compromise between a coalition of land conservation trusts, the developer, and the landowner. The article, titled Applying GIS and landscape ecological principles to evaluate land conservation alternatives, illustrated the use of GIS in creating a unified agreement between a multitude of stakeholders. The authors and assumed researchers, Richard Lathrop and John Bognar, achieved this by firstly conducting an environmental constraints assessment, and secondly, by allocating areas with lower environmental costs and constraints to development and those with high environmental costs and constraints to conservation.

After the environmental constraint assessment was conducted, the stakeholders began parceling out land deemed development or conservation. They did not employ an MCE, but instead decided to rank all 5 parameters equally during the negotiation process. Overall, they decided to allocate areas with lower environmental costs and constraints to development and those with high environmental costs and constraints to conservation. They attempted to cluster development into blocks, so as to diminish the overall environmental impact, as well as steer clear of important watersheds and the general area of the Appalachian Trail.

While the target for development was 1,100 ha, negotiations resulted in 900 ha of development and 6345 ha of conserved land. However, it was mentioned that there were regions in the New York metropolitan area that may have been better suited for this kind of development. Despite this, the use of GIS in this project illustrates the use of this software and analysis type in the realm of public policy and multi-stakeholder agreement.

In terms of the GIS analysis, however, I give this article a 7 out of 10. Though a preliminary analysis for development, I believe that they could have used other data or conducted further analysis, such as analyzing how much core area would be left once the 900 ha was developed. I also believe an MCE would have enhanced their analysis, and could have honed in on the point that no development was necessarily good for Sterling Forest.