Policing Social Disorder and Broken Windows Theory: Spatial Evidence from the “Franeleros” Experience
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Interesting paper about the presence of franeleros in Mexico City as a sign of social disorder and its spatial and statistical relation to auto parts robbery, which may increase feelings of insecurity and danger in different neighborhoods. The phenomena, in turn, may lead to elevated levels of crime and anti-social behavior, as people may perceive that nobody cares about the area, and hence they are less likely to be caught and punished for their crime.
My suggestions for improvement are as follows:
- The theoretical explanations/assumptions of the relationship between social disorder and parking attendants and their behaviors and networks are somewhat unclear in the introduction?
- "Franeleros can also be examined through the lens of Informal Economy and Rational Choice Theory; however, it seems that these perspectives are not explicitly addressed in the paper, possibly with some exception in the discussion section (see also comment below)."
- The structure, numbering, and headings need to be reviewed throughout the entire paper.
- Maps: Position text labels (e.g. The neighborhoods of Bosques de Cha- pultepec and Centro IV and VIII or areas in Roma-Condesa and San Angel-Coyoacan, different road names etc.) on the maps so the reader can orient themselves. All names mentioned in the text should be included on the maps. Consider adding a road layer inclusive road labels to the maps as the study pertains to car-related crimes. Additionally, scale bars and north arrows are missing from the maps; this needs to be addressed! Map/figure text below the maps
- Page 9. Regarding “Gaussian tent-shaped distribution” It seems like there might be a bit of a mix-up here. The Gaussian distribution, also known as the normal distribution, is associated with the "bell curve" shape, not a "tent shape". Laplace distribution has a "tent shape" though.
- page 9. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test and the Wilcoxon test are both non-parametric tests, but they serve different purposes. Each of these tests has its application, and the choice of which test to use depends on the RQ and the type of the data. Explain how you apply them in your paper, and in relation to each other and to what purpose (-s)
p.9 The unsupervised hierarchical classification algorithm seeks normally to build a hierarchy of clusters? In what way does it apply to your approach?
p14. Related to comment above. You are mentioning the rational theory of crime, is that the same as Rational Choice Theory in which Franeleros can be studied from the perspective of the informal economy and rational choices. Individuals who engage in such activities might be doing it as a rational strategy to earn money, even though the activity may be illegal or unethical. Should this be addressed more explicit in the paper?
- The conclusion should be more explicitly connected to the study's aims and hypotheses; as it is now, it is more an extension of the results and discussion. Nothing new should be mentioned. No references should be added. Consider adding a subheading for future research in the final section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Q1.- The theoretical explanations/assumptions of the relationship between social disorder and parking attendants and their behaviors and networks are somewhat unclear in the introduction?
R1.- We have modified the introduction and included the following to clarify that we are using franeleros as an indicator of social disorder: “As an indicator of disorder, we have chosen to use the presence of the so-called “franeleros” (people who demand payment from drivers to take care of a vehicle parked on public roads) both because they illegally appropriate public space (the street), and because inhabitants and authorities also consider them signs of disorder and the absence of State authority. In addition to occupying public spaces, they frequently use rocks, buckets, pieces of cement, or other objects to prevent drivers from parking without their assistance. Not only do residents have to live with their streets filled with such obstacles, but drivers also feel extorted as they must pay for these to be removed in order to park.”
Q2.- "Franeleros can also be examined through the lens of Informal Economy and Rational Choice Theory; however, it seems that these perspectives are not explicitly addressed in the paper, possibly with some exception in the discussion section (see also comment below)."
R2.-This is correct. We have included the following, slightly broader, comments: “In fact, it is possible to characterize the behavior of offenders as rational within the framework of the routine activity theory of crime (Miró, 2014). However, there is recent evidence from a natural quasi-experiment that identified rational criminal behavior in Mexico City that does not appear to be explained by routine activity theory (García-Tejeda & Fondevila 2023). The authors found that robberies around bus stops increased with the decrease in the cost of execution of a crime, within a context in which the flow of suitable targets had decreased but the capacity of guardians had remained constant. Despite the progress, without better evidence on criminal behavior, the direct study of the rationality of offenders continues to be a limitation for the study of crime”.
Q3.- p14. Related to comment above. You are mentioning the rational theory of crime, is that the same as Rational Choice Theory in which Franeleros can be studied from the perspective of the informal economy and rational choices. Individuals who engage in such activities might be doing it as a rational strategy to earn money, even though the activity may be illegal or unethical. Should this be addressed more explicit in the paper?
R3.- As in the previous question: the reviewer’s point is correct, however we feel that our explanation caused more confusion than precision. We have removed the point on rational choice theory.
Q4.- The structure, numbering, and headings need to be reviewed throughout the entire paper.
R4.-The headings have been corrected and the structure of the paper reviewed.
Q5.- Maps: Position text labels (e.g. The neighborhoods of Bosques de Cha-pultepec and Centro IV and VIII or areas in Roma-Condesa and San Angel-Coyoacan, different road names etc.) on the maps so the reader can orient themselves. All names mentioned in the text should be included on the maps. Consider adding a road layer inclusive road labels to the maps as the study pertains to car-related crimes. Additionally, scale bars and north arrows are missing from the maps; this needs to be addressed! Map/figure text below the maps.
R5.- We have added a new map 3 with the Mexico City road layer that identifies the Roma-Condesa and San Angel-Coyoacan tourist corridors more clearly. In the new map, we have also included text labels for the neighborhoods of Bosques de Chapultepec, Centro IV and VII, as well as San Angel and Del Carmen and other neighborhoods. In addition, we have ensured that the names mentioned in the text appear on the new map and have included more information to help the reader orient themselves (for example, we include the location of museums and labelled the main ones, as we have included information about these in the text). Finally, we have also included scale bars and north arrows in all maps and placed the respective text below these maps.
Q6.- Page 9. Regarding “Gaussian tent-shaped distribution” It seems like there might be a bit of a mix-up here. The Gaussian distribution, also known as the normal distribution, is associated with the "bell curve" shape, not a "tent shape". Laplace distribution has a "tent shape" though.
R6.- Corrected
Q7.- page 9. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test and the Wilcoxon test are both non-parametric tests, but they serve different purposes. Each of these tests has its application, and the choice of which test to use depends on the RQ and the type of the data. Explain how you apply them in your paper, and in relation to each other and to what purpose (-s).
R7.- Our research hypothesis is that there are significant differences in the incidence of property crimes against vehicles in the neighborhoods with only parking attendants and those with only parking meters, due to the social disorder created by the presence of parking attendants. We thus used the Wilcoxon test to check whether there are differences in medians. In addition, we used the K-S test to test whether there are other significant differences between the two distributions (beyond that of the median). However, the presence of ties in the data complicated the appropriate calculation of the K-S test. This was highlighted by the R software used for the statistical analysis.
Nevertheless, we consider it appropriate to present the results of both tests as we are seeking significant differences in the data, as stated in the research hypothesis (page 9). We thus think it is appropriate to use both tests to find differences in crime incidence per type of neighborhood. In fact, the test results coincide for the 3 types of crime and the 2 types of neighborhoods. We have mentioned the problem of the ties in the data regarding the K-S test in the methodology section.
Finally, in the methodology section, we have included an explicit explanation of the reasoning behind the use of each test for our study, the relationship between them, and their purpose.
Q8.- p.9 The unsupervised hierarchical classification algorithm seeks normally to build a hierarchy of clusters? In what way does it apply to your approach?
R8.- Steenbeek and Kreis (2015) propose this method “to identify areas with similar levels of disorder (from serene, to ‘‘tipping,’’ to crime-ridden) which is crucial for a valid empirical test of Broken Windows Theory”. Similarly, we aimed to identify neighborhoods with similar levels of disorder and flow of neighbors and visitors, even though they were not located next to each other (this is already done in the Moran’s I tests). With this, we attempted to identify similar characteristics of both hotspots located in different parts of the city.
We have included the details in the methodology section (pp. 9-10) and developed the interpretation and its relationship with our argument in the results and discussion sections (p. 12 and p.15) to clarify the use of the method in our research.
Q9.- The conclusion should be more explicitly connected to the study's aims and hypotheses; as it is now, it is more an extension of the results and discussion. Nothing new should be mentioned. No references should be added. Consider adding a subheading for future research in the final section.
R9.- Good point: we have modified the conclusions without too much additional text. We have included a brief comment on the research question, taken out the citations and have added a section on future research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents interesting research results on the association between disorder and criminality. The data were collected properly, analyzied and presented in a sufficient way.
The only thing need to be revisesd is to long introduction section which should be shorten and order.
Author Response
Q10- The only thing need to be revised is to long introduction section which should be shorten and order.
R10.- The introduction has been shortened and we have also clarified the connection between social disorder and the presence of franeleros, explaining that parking attendants are considered indicators of social disorder (by inhabitants themselves and by the State).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research focus on the relationship between social disorder( indicated by the presence of parking attendants) and auto-related crimes in Mexico city, which in my opinion is quite interesting and meaningful. Especially, the authors analyze the results of the research using the broken window theory, which I think is also reasonable. Generally speaking, the manuscript is well written with a relatively clear logic. The method used in this research is appropriate too. I have some comments or questions which I think the authors could address.
1. The first issue is regarding the relationship between the social disorder and the presence of parking attendants. As a foreigner who is not familiar with the contents of the Mexico city, I hope I could obtain more information in terms of the parking attendants from the paper. I do not quite understand why the area with parking attendants are considered as a social disorder. Although the authors have made some description and interpretation, I think it is still not enough as it is the key point of this research. Further, are there some references that could give more explanations?
2. As for the routine activities theory proposed by Cohn and Felson in 1979, I am wondering whether the authors could use it to explain the results from the view of capable guardians. Whether the authors could make more discussions on that?
3. The authors mentioned that “an unsupervised hierarchical classification algorithm for clustering was used to group neighborhoods with internal coherence but that differed from each other” in page 9, but I can not find the related content and discussions on that in the following part of the paper.
Author Response
Q11.- The first issue is regarding the relationship between the social disorder and the presence of parking attendants. As a foreigner who is not familiar with the contents of the Mexico city, I hope I could obtain more information in terms of the parking attendants from the paper. I do not quite understand why the area with parking attendants are considered as a social disorder. Although the authors have made some description and interpretation, I think it is still not enough as it is the key point of this research. Further, are there some references that could give more explanations?
R11.- We did not want to extend the introduction too much, but have added a paragraph that responds to this observation: As an indicator of disorder, we have chosen to use the presence of the so-called “franeleros” (people who demand payment from drivers to take care of a vehicle parked on public roads) both because they illegally appropriate public space (the street), and because inhabitants and authorities also consider them signs of disorder and the absence of State authority. In addition to occupying public spaces, they frequently use rocks, buckets, pieces of cement, or other objects to prevent drivers from parking without their assistance. Not only do residents have to live with their streets filled with such obstacles, but drivers also feel extorted as they must pay for these to be removed in order to park.
Q12.- As for the routine activities theory proposed by Cohn and Felson in 1979, I am wondering whether the authors could use it to explain the results from the view of capable guardians. Whether the authors could make more discussions on that?
R12.- We have added further discussion in the results within the framework of the routine activity theory (RAT). We have included three recent papers for a deeper discussion of aspects of i) RAT regarding the location of crime; ii) the relationship between RAT and the rational theory of crime; and iii) recent research into violent robbery of passers-by in Mexico City that discusses the application of RAT and contrast it with the rational theory of crime. These new paragraphs appear at the end of the discussion section.
Q13.- The authors mentioned that “an unsupervised hierarchical classification algorithm for clustering was used to group neighborhoods with internal coherence but that differed from each other” in page 9, but I can not find the related content and discussions on that in the following part of the paper.
R13.- Steenbeek y Kreis (2015) propose this method “to identify areas with similar levels of disorder (from serene, to ‘‘tipping,’’ to crime-ridden) which is crucial for a valid empirical test of Broken Windows Theory”. Similarly, we aimed to identify neighborhoods with similar levels of disorder and flow of neighbors and visitors, even though they were not located next to each other (this is already done in the Moran’s I tests). With this, we attempted to identify similar characteristics of both hotspots located in different parts of the city.
We have included the details in the methodology section (pp. 9-10) and developed the interpretation and its relationship with our argument in the results and discussion sections (p. 12 and p.15) to clarify the use of the method in our research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
