Improving the Creation of Hot Spot Policing Patrol Routes: Comparing Cognitive Heuristic Performance to an Automated Spatial Computation Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is a highly good contribution to hotspot policing. The hotspot is the flag guiding the police to distribute human resources soundly, but little focus was paid to how scientifically plan patrol routes following the crime pattern. this work proposed two new methods, HotSee and HotStar, to solve the problem and compared the results with the old manual one, the results support that a precisely designed method could solve the problem in a highly efficient way. 

Two suggestions:

1.Could the authors design the measures in a formulated form? though the texts describe the principle of measures well, I suggest listing the mathematical functions to avoid the understanding bias

2.The period of the method utilization should be clarified. Since the author used a whole year of crime data to experimentally test the methods, the methods being used periodically could be advised following the CompStat principle.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

R1.1. This paper is a highly good contribution to hotspot policing. The hotspot is the flag guiding the police to distribute human resources soundly, but little focus was paid to how scientifically plan patrol routes following the crime pattern. this work proposed two new methods, HotSee and HotStar, to solve the problem and compared the results with the old manual one, the results support that a precisely designed method could solve the problem in a highly efficient way.

Reply 1.1. We thank you for reviewing the article. Thanks for your very positive comments and advice on how we can further improve the paper. We have made changes you have suggested and provide details below.

 

R1.2. Could the authors design the measures in a formulated form? though the texts describe the principle of measures well, I suggest listing the mathematical functions to avoid the understanding bias

Reply 1.2. We did not think it was the place for this article and for this journal to provide computational code and mathematical functions for the hot spot routing methods we propose. Also, these code and functions require some detailed explaination so instead we have written another article with this computer/data science and mathematical focus that is currently under review by a suitable computer science/data science journal. We thought it better to describe the algorithms we have developed (HotStar and HotSee) in the way we have in the current article for IJGI so that this article also appeals to a police practitioner audience (which we think is important, based on the findings we show), and in particular because of the open access nature to the article to this audience once the article is published. Until the complementary computer science/data science article is published, we have made this complementary article available on the Open Science Framework website and include details in the current IJGI article of this complementary article (and the OSF web link).

 

R1.2. The period of the method utilization should be clarified. Since the author used a whole year of crime data to experimentally test the methods, the methods being used periodically could be advised following the CompStat principle

Reply 1.2. Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following paragraph into the revised manuscript:

“In the current study we used data for a one-year period to create hot spot policing patrol routes. Hot spots of crime do not tend to change over time (Chainey 2021; Weisburd et al 2004) and as evidence from hot spot policing interventions suggest that spatial displacement of crime is rare (Braga et al. 2019), it is unlikely that patrol routes need to be frequently changed. However, we suggest that the impact of the hot spot policing patrols are continually reviewed (e.g., on a monthly basis as a part of a police agency’s routine performance review meeting process) to identify if displacement has occurred. This review process may also identify if a diffusion of benefit effect has occurred, which can often be the case with hot spot policing interventions (Weisburd and Telep 2014). If the hot spot policing intervention is implemented as a long-term solution, it is recommended that the patrol routes are reviewed every three to six months to identify if new hot spots have emerged and require attention (identifying reference).”

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very well written and is easy to follow. Certainly it will be well received by the audience of the journal.

There is however one issue worth addressing, which can be easily rectified:-

"Research that has examined the deterrence effect of police patrols suggests that a patrol presence of 15 minutes in a hot spot for every hour is optimal (Koper 1995). Therefore, 15 minutes would give sufficient time for a foot patrol to walk a route of about one kilometer in length, stopping on occasion and optimizing their deterrence effect."

The reference is very outdated (1995), and for such an important value used in the research should be augmented with the following references (or others), which provide a better rationale for the time value:

Williams S & Coupe T (2017) Frequency Vs. Length of Hot Spots Patrols: a Randomised Controlled Trial, Camb J Evid Based Polic (2017) 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-017-0003-1

Macbeth E & Ariel A (2017) Place-based Statistical Versus Clinical Predictions of Crime Hot Spots and Harm Locations in Northern Ireland, Justice Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1360379

G. Oatley, Williams S., G. C. Barnes, J. Clare & B. Chapman (2019) Crime concentration in Perth CBD: a comparison of officer predicted hot spots, data derived hot spots and officer GPS patrol data, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences,51:sup1, S136-S140, DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2019.1569141

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

R.2.1. The paper is very well written and is easy to follow. Certainly it will be well received by the audience of the journal.

Reply 2.1. We thank you for reviewing the article. Thanks for your very positive comments and advice on how we can further improve the paper. We have made changes you have suggested and provide details below.

 

R2.2. There is however one issue worth addressing, which can be easily rectified: "Research that has examined the deterrence effect of police patrols suggests that a patrol presence of 15 minutes in a hot spot for every hour is optimal (Koper 1995). Therefore, 15 minutes would give sufficient time for a foot patrol to walk a route of about one kilometer in length, stopping on occasion and optimizing their deterrence effect."

The reference is very outdated (1995), and for such an important value used in the research should be augmented with the following references (or others), which provide a better rationale for the time value:

Williams S & Coupe T (2017) Frequency Vs. Length of Hot Spots Patrols: a Randomised Controlled Trial, Camb J Evid Based Polic (2017) 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-017-0003-1

Macbeth E & Ariel A (2017) Place-based Statistical Versus Clinical Predictions of Crime Hot Spots and Harm Locations in Northern Ireland, Justice Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1360379

10. Oatley, Williams S., G. C. Barnes, J. Clare & B. Chapman (2019) Crime concentration in Perth CBD: a comparison of officer predicted hot spots, data derived hot spots and officer GPS patrol data, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences,51:sup1, S136-S140, DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2019.1569141

Reply 2.2. Koper (1995) is the classic reference that continually gets referenced today in studies of hot spot policing where ‘dosage’ is considered. However, we were aware of the Williams S & Coupe T (2017) and Macbeth E & Ariel A (2017) research but not the Oatley et al. (2019) study. We have revised the text as follows after reading/re-reading these articles:

“Koper (1995) suggested that a patrol presence of 15 minutes in a hot spot for every hour is optimal for the deterrence effect of police patrols. Since this study, other researchers have tested Koper’s findings and have similarly suggested that 15 minutes in a hot spot for every hour is an optimal time for the presence of police patrols to deter offending behaviour (Macbeth and Ariel 2017; Oatley et al. 2019; Williams and Coupe 2017). Therefore, 15 minutes would give sufficient time for a foot patrol to walk a route of about one kilometer in length, stopping on occasion and optimizing their deterrence effect."

Reviewer 3 Report

The author aims to develop a policing patrol routes based on hot spots, the topic is interesting. However, the manuscript is not well presented overall, including the grammar and structure. Therefore, the review suggest the author carefully prepare the manuscript first. 

Some comments are listed in following.

1. The title is not concise enough. Also, the main contribution are not highlighted in the title.
2. For the abstract, it is also hard to see the main contribution of the study.
3. Many references are not cited in an appropriate format.
4. Some concepts are not well explained at the first time, e.g. the “cognitive heuristic approach”.
5. There are so many grammar problems, the author should check and correct carefully.
6. The whole paper is not well structured, there is even no secondary title.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

R3.1. The author aims to develop a policing patrol routes based on hot spots, the topic is interesting. However, the manuscript is not well presented overall, including the grammar and structure. Therefore, the review suggest the author carefully prepare the manuscript first.

Reply 3.1. We thank you for reviewing the article. Thanks for your comments and advice on how we can further improve the paper. We have made several of the changes you have suggested and provide details below. However, we do not agree that the ‘the manuscript is not well presented overall, including the grammar and structure’ particularly because the other two reviewers stated ‘The paper is very well written and is easy to follow’, that the ‘English language and style are fine’ and that the research design, description of methods, presentation of results and the conclusions were of a high standard. In light of your comments, we asked an experienced and highly published professor to read the article and who also stated to us that the article was well written, structured and presented, and only suggested minor edits. We have proof read the revised article and also made some edits which we hope has addressed issues you think exist with the writing of the paper.

 

R3.2. The title is not concise enough. Also, the main contribution are not highlighted in the title.

Reply 3.2. The paper is about improving the creation of hot spot policing patrol routes using an automated spatial computation approach. The main approach to date for creating patrol routes is the manual approach (which can scientifically be described as a cognitive heuristic approach), against which the automated spatial computational approach is compared. So, although we recognize the title is longer than average for journal articles, we think it is suitable for the journal (IJGI) and accurately describes what the article is about. Also, because neither of the other two reviewers suggested we change the title of the paper, we would prefer to keep it as is. Please also refer to our Reply 3.7.

 

R3.3. For the abstract, it is also hard to see the main contribution of the study.

Reply 3.3. We disagree with this comment. The paper makes three main contributions:

• we introduce a computational approach for automating the creation of hot spot policing patrol routes. We state this in the abstract.
• As the title of the paper states, we compare between the cognitive heuristic approach and an automated spatial computation approach. In the abstract we state ‘The computational techniques we introduce create patrol routes that cover areas of higher levels of crime than an equivalent manual approach for creating hot spot policing patrol routes, and are more efficient in how they cover crime hot spots.’ So, we think we are clear about this contribution.
• Our third main contribution is the implications of the findings in helping to potentially improve the effectiveness of hot spot policing. In the abstract we state ‘Although hot spot policing interventions are proven to be effective in decreasing crime, the findings from the current research suggest that the impact of these interventions can potentially be greater when using the computational approaches we introduce for creating hot spot policing patrol routes.’

The other reviewers did not indicate any issues with the abstract. The abstract was also reviewed by the professor referred to in Reply 3.1, and she said it excellent. We, therefore, do not think the abstract needs to be changed.

 

R3.4. Many references are not cited in an appropriate format.

Reply 3.4. We have checked these and made edits to conform with the journal’s requirements.

 

R.3.5. Some concepts are not well explained at the first time, e.g. the “cognitive heuristic approach”.

Reply 3.5. The description we provide to clarify what is meant by the term ‘cognitive heuristic approach’ was on page 9 in the original manuscript. We now clarify this term at the first point it is written in the introduction section.

 

R3.6. There are so many grammar problems, the author should check and correct carefully.

Reply 3.6. The paper has been reviewed by the professor we refer to in reply 3.1. for grammatical errors, and she identified very few. We have proof read the article and made corrections where we identified improvements could be made, but these were few. Also, in general we disagree that the paper has numerous grammar problems, particularly when other reviewers explicitly stated in the reviews that the paper was well written, well structured and graded the paper at the highest level of English language and style.

 

R.3.7. The whole paper is not well structured, there is even no secondary title.

Reply 3.7. We believe the paper is well structured, and as mentioned, other reviewers even stated this ‘The paper is very well written and is easy to follow’ and ‘Certainly it will be well received by the audience of the journal.’ The proof reading by the professor referred to in Reply 3.1 also stated this to us so we do not think changes to the article’s structure are necessary.

The title of the paper is ‘Improving the creation of hot spot policing patrol routes: comparing cognitive heuristic performance to an automated spatial computational approach’. The part of the title after the colon is the second part to the title so we are not sure what is meant by ‘there is even no secondary title.’

We have, however, made several changes to article to improve it based on your comments, and we hope the article is now acceptable.