Templar Bacha-GEOB 479
Abstract
Activity spaces can be most concisely described as the areas in which an individual frequently travels throughout their day to day life. In turn, the mapping of activity spaces can then allow for a simple analysis of the daily routes of individuals. Activity spaces do not necessarily take into account the lesser visited sites, instead focusing upon anchor points which are the most frequented destinations. In terms of every day analysis, common anchor points can be work places,homes and schools- though of course they are highly subjective based on how an individual functions. As noted by Downs(2016), the mapping of activity spaces is not a new phenomenon in areas of crime and geographic study- yet the new evolving function of mapping potential path areas is increasing. Unlike activity spaces, potential path areas are governed by constraints such as time, though these change based on how the path areas are modeled (Patterson,2015). Furthermore, potential paths determine where an individual participates in activities(based on weights), while activity spaces examine the direct contact of individuals (Patterson,2015). As such, it is logical that the aforementioned techniques are becoming prevalent in the spatial analysis of crime, and those who commit crimes. Furthermore, through the combined use of geographic information systems, previously collected data on crime, statistical analysis and the location of criminal addresses , comparisons can be formed between the occurrence of crime and locations of criminal activity spaces. Moreover, in the city of Washington D.C which has a detailed sex offender registry of work,home and school addresses analysis can be conducted on the activity space of sex offenders and the locations of violent sexual crimes across the city.